PAUL
v.
WATERS, WARDEN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court's finding that the petitioner failed to establish facts supporting his habeas corpus claim was not clearly erroneous.
Petitioner pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He sought a writ of habeas corpus, alleging he was induced to plead guilty…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Coercion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order denying an application for a writ of habeas corpus.
Paul, the petitioner, was charged by an information filed in the District Court of Washington County, Oklahoma, with the offense of murder. On July 28, 1926, he appeared in open court and entered a plea of guilty to the information and was sentenced to imprisonment for life.
As grounds for the writ he set up that he was induced to enter the plea of guilty through threats, intimidation, and coercion of the County Sheriff and state officials. An application for a writ of habeas corpus predicated on substantially the same grounds was denied by the Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. See Ex parte Paul, Okl.Cr.App., 227 P. 2d 422. A petition for certiorari to review that decision was denied by the Supreme Court. Paul v. Burford, Warden, 341 U.S. 922, 71 S.Ct. 738, 95 L.Ed. 1355.
After a full hearing the court below found that the petitioner had failed to establish the facts alleged in his application as grounds for the writ. The question presented is peculiarly one of fact. The trial court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses while on the stand and their demeanor while testifying and to judge their credibility. We cannot say that the finding of the trial court was clearly erroneous. The order discharging the writ is, therefore, affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lunce v. Dowd, 261 F.2d 351 (7th Cir. 1958)
Authorities Cited
- Paul v. Burford, 341 U.S. 922 (U.S. 1951)