Thomas Hubbard v. Lawrence E. Wilson, Warden, California State Prison, San Quentin, California

Ninth Circuit

Thomas Hubbard v. Lawrence E. Wilson, Warden, California State Prison, San Quentin, California

357 F.2d 736, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7085

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 23, 1966

Docket20396_1

StatusPublished

This text of 357 F.2d 736 (Thomas Hubbard v. Lawrence E. Wilson, Warden, California State Prison, San Quentin, California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thomas Hubbard v. Lawrence E. Wilson, Warden, California State Prison, San Quentin, California, 357 F.2d 736, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7085 (9th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks discharge in habeas corpus from a state conviction. Although appellant alleges his constitutional rights were violated in several ways, he chiefly attacks the admission of certain testimony respecting incriminating statements which were made by him. Appellant’s petition failed to show these alleged incriminating statements. Accordingly the District Court denied his application without hearing upon the ground that the petition failed to show prejudice.

The petitioner’s failure to provide evidence of the incriminating statements has been remedied in this court by the appendix to appellee’s brief. In this ap *737 pendix there appears the unpublished opinion of the State District Court of Appeal on review of the judgment of conviction. The nature of the incriminating statements is set forth in that opinion.

Under these circumstances further consideration by the District Court is warranted.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks discharge in habeas corpus from a state conviction. Although appellant alleges his constitutional rights were violated in several ways, he chiefly attacks the admission of certain testimony respecting incriminating statements which were made by him. Appellant’s petition failed to show these alleged incriminating statements. Accordingly the District Court denied his application without hearing upon the ground that the petition failed to show prejudice.

The petitioner’s failure to provide evidence of the incriminating statements has been remedied in this court by the appendix to appellee’s brief. In this ap *737 pendix there appears the unpublished opinion of the State District Court of Appeal on review of the judgment of conviction. The nature of the incriminating statements is set forth in that opinion.

Under these circumstances further consideration by the District Court is warranted.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

357 F.2d 736, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7085, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-hubbard-v-lawrence-e-wilson-warden-california-state-prison-san-ca9-1966.