William Commedore v. Clarence T. Gladden, Warden, Oregon State Penitentiary

Ninth Circuit

William Commedore v. Clarence T. Gladden, Warden, Oregon State Penitentiary

416 F.2d 20, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10782

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 16, 1969

Docket23829

StatusPublished

This text of 416 F.2d 20 (William Commedore v. Clarence T. Gladden, Warden, Oregon State Penitentiary) 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

William Commedore v. Clarence T. Gladden, Warden, Oregon State Penitentiary, 416 F.2d 20, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10782 (9th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from an order denying a writ of habeas corpus. Commedore is an Oregon state prisoner, serving a 19-year sentence imposed under the Oregon Habitual Criminal Act, ORS 168.085(3). He was found to have committed three prior felonies. He attacked the validity of one of these on two grounds. First, he says that because his sentence was to jail rather than to state penitentiary, his conviction was of a misdemeanor. This point has been decided against him by the Supreme Court of Oregon. State v. Commedore, 1964, 239 Or. 82, 396 P.2d 216. He also claimed that he pled guilty *21 in the prior case because he was led to believe that he would be found guilty-only of a misdemeanor. On this issue the federal court held a hearing at which appellant testified. The court did not believe him, and found against him on the facts; that finding is sustained by the record.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from an order denying a writ of habeas corpus. Commedore is an Oregon state prisoner, serving a 19-year sentence imposed under the Oregon Habitual Criminal Act, ORS 168.085(3). He was found to have committed three prior felonies. He attacked the validity of one of these on two grounds. First, he says that because his sentence was to jail rather than to state penitentiary, his conviction was of a misdemeanor. This point has been decided against him by the Supreme Court of Oregon. State v. Commedore, 1964, 239 Or. 82, 396 P.2d 216. He also claimed that he pled guilty *21 in the prior case because he was led to believe that he would be found guilty-only of a misdemeanor. On this issue the federal court held a hearing at which appellant testified. The court did not believe him, and found against him on the facts; that finding is sustained by the record.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

416 F.2d 20, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-commedore-v-clarence-t-gladden-warden-oregon-state-penitentiary-ca9-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack