Sandlin v. Estelle

Fifth Circuit

Sandlin v. Estelle

491 F.2d 1257, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9464

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 27, 1974

DocketNo. 73-3297

StatusPublished

This text of 491 F.2d 1257 (Sandlin v. Estelle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sandlin v. Estelle, 491 F.2d 1257, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9464 (5th Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a Texas state prisoner, was denied federal habeas relief. The sentence appellant is serving was imposed after conviction by a jury of robbery by assault. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. Sandlin v. State, Tex.Cr.App. 1972, 477 S.W.2d 870.

We have carefully considered the entire record, including the state trial transcripts, in determining the merits of appellant’s various federal habeas claims. We find no merit in these claims, whether considered singly or collectively. Specifically, we conclude (1) that appellant’s trial counsel was not ineffective; (2) appellant was not lacking in requisite mental capacity at the time of the commission of the offense; [1258]*1258(3) he possessed the requisite mental competency to stand trial; (4) he was not subjected to an illegal arrest, search or seizure; and (5) the claim of an illegal lineup is without substance.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a Texas state prisoner, was denied federal habeas relief. The sentence appellant is serving was imposed after conviction by a jury of robbery by assault. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. Sandlin v. State, Tex.Cr.App. 1972, 477 S.W.2d 870.

We have carefully considered the entire record, including the state trial transcripts, in determining the merits of appellant’s various federal habeas claims. We find no merit in these claims, whether considered singly or collectively. Specifically, we conclude (1) that appellant’s trial counsel was not ineffective; (2) appellant was not lacking in requisite mental capacity at the time of the commission of the offense; [1258]*1258(3) he possessed the requisite mental competency to stand trial; (4) he was not subjected to an illegal arrest, search or seizure; and (5) the claim of an illegal lineup is without substance.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

491 F.2d 1257, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sandlin-v-estelle-ca5-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack