William L. Meadows v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

Fifth Circuit

William L. Meadows v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

455 F.2d 985, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10827

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 10, 1972

Docket71-3431

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 455 F.2d 985 (William L. Meadows v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections) 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

William L. Meadows v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, 455 F.2d 985, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10827 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Finding that Meadows did not have effective assistance of counsel with regard to his right to appeal from a judgment entered upon his plea of guilty of robbery in 1959 in the District Court of Tyler County, Texas, the court below granted Meadows’ petition for writ of habeas corpus, 331 F.Supp. 1017.

This issue has never been presented to the courts of the State of Texas. “Having failed to exhaust state post-conviction remedies, petitioner is precluded from using this federal forum to decide this question. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254; Fox v. Dutton, 5 Cir. 1968, 406 F.2d 123.” Donlavey v. Smith, 5 Cir. 1970, 426 F.2d 800.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Finding that Meadows did not have effective assistance of counsel with regard to his right to appeal from a judgment entered upon his plea of guilty of robbery in 1959 in the District Court of Tyler County, Texas, the court below granted Meadows’ petition for writ of habeas corpus, 331 F.Supp. 1017.

This issue has never been presented to the courts of the State of Texas. “Having failed to exhaust state post-conviction remedies, petitioner is precluded from using this federal forum to decide this question. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254; Fox v. Dutton, 5 Cir. 1968, 406 F.2d 123.” Donlavey v. Smith, 5 Cir. 1970, 426 F.2d 800.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

455 F.2d 985, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-l-meadows-v-dr-george-j-beto-director-texas-department-of-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack