Wendell Bennett Maxie v. Harold A. Cox, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary

Tenth Circuit

Wendell Bennett Maxie v. Harold A. Cox, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary

357 F.2d 335, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7106

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 21, 1966

Docket8478_1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 357 F.2d 335 (Wendell Bennett Maxie v. Harold A. Cox, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wendell Bennett Maxie v. Harold A. Cox, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary, 357 F.2d 335, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7106 (10th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from the denial of ha-beas corpus relief to appellant, a prisoner in the New Mexico penitentiary serving a state sentence. The federal district court appointed counsel for appellant and conducted a hearing at which appellant testified and the warden introduced a transcript of the state proceedings. Included therein was a stenographic report of the arraignment and sentencing. On the evidence adduced the district court found that no prejudice resulted to appellant from the lack of counsel at a preliminary hearing; that the plea of guilty in the state court was entered knowingly and intelligently; and that the appellant acknowledged to the state court his satisfaction with his counsel. On the basis of these findings the court denied the writ.

We have repeatedly held in New Mexico habeas cases that a voluntary plea of guilty waives all defects in the proceedings preliminary thereto. See Pearce v. Cox, 10 Cir., 354 F.2d 884; and *336 Gantar v. Cox, 10 Cir., 351 F.2d 65, 66, From our examination of the record we are convinced of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of the voluntariness of the plea.

This would end the matter but for one thing. Appointed counsel in this court has suggested that at the time of the state court plea the prosecuting attorney and the state court appointed counsel were members of the same law firm. Although the record is not conclusive on the point, it indicates that this situation existed. We disapprove of such practice. It is unseemly for law partners to appear on opposing sides of a lawsuit. Reversal is not justified because the point was not raised below and no showing is made of prejudice. The appellant stated to the state court that he was satisfied with his lawyer.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from the denial of ha-beas corpus relief to appellant, a prisoner in the New Mexico penitentiary serving a state sentence. The federal district court appointed counsel for appellant and conducted a hearing at which appellant testified and the warden introduced a transcript of the state proceedings. Included therein was a stenographic report of the arraignment and sentencing. On the evidence adduced the district court found that no prejudice resulted to appellant from the lack of counsel at a preliminary hearing; that the plea of guilty in the state court was entered knowingly and intelligently; and that the appellant acknowledged to the state court his satisfaction with his counsel. On the basis of these findings the court denied the writ.

We have repeatedly held in New Mexico habeas cases that a voluntary plea of guilty waives all defects in the proceedings preliminary thereto. See Pearce v. Cox, 10 Cir., 354 F.2d 884; and *336 Gantar v. Cox, 10 Cir., 351 F.2d 65, 66, From our examination of the record we are convinced of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of the voluntariness of the plea.

This would end the matter but for one thing. Appointed counsel in this court has suggested that at the time of the state court plea the prosecuting attorney and the state court appointed counsel were members of the same law firm. Although the record is not conclusive on the point, it indicates that this situation existed. We disapprove of such practice. It is unseemly for law partners to appear on opposing sides of a lawsuit. Reversal is not justified because the point was not raised below and no showing is made of prejudice. The appellant stated to the state court that he was satisfied with his lawyer.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

357 F.2d 335, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wendell-bennett-maxie-v-harold-a-cox-warden-new-mexico-state-ca10-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack