Vaino Uski v. Walter T. Stone, Superintendent, Central Training Facility, Soledad, California, the People of the State of California

Ninth Circuit

Vaino Uski v. Walter T. Stone, Superintendent, Central Training Facility, Soledad, California, the People of the State of California

523 F.2d 14

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 25, 1975

Docket74-1896

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 523 F.2d 14 (Vaino Uski v. Walter T. Stone, Superintendent, Central Training Facility, Soledad, California, the People of the State of 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

Vaino Uski v. Walter T. Stone, Superintendent, Central Training Facility, Soledad, California, the People of the State of California, 523 F.2d 14 (9th Cir. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Before MERRILL and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, * District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The question presented is whether the district court erred in refusing to consider alleged constitutional violations that occurred in connection with a motion to suppress evidence when proceedings on that motion were followed by a guilty plea. In denying the writ the district court followed this court in Mann v. Smith, 488 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. 1973). Since decision by the district court the Supreme Court, in Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283, 95 S.Ct. 886, 43 L.Ed.2d 196 (1975), has required a contrary result in the light of Cal.Penal Code, § 1538.5(m).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. In our view appointment of counsel is warranted.

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

OPINION

Before MERRILL and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, * District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The question presented is whether the district court erred in refusing to consider alleged constitutional violations that occurred in connection with a motion to suppress evidence when proceedings on that motion were followed by a guilty plea. In denying the writ the district court followed this court in Mann v. Smith, 488 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. 1973). Since decision by the district court the Supreme Court, in Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283, 95 S.Ct. 886, 43 L.Ed.2d 196 (1975), has required a contrary result in the light of Cal.Penal Code, § 1538.5(m).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. In our view appointment of counsel is warranted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

523 F.2d 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vaino-uski-v-walter-t-stone-superintendent-central-training-facility-ca9-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack