THOMAS D. MAYFIELD, APPELLANT,
v.
H. C. MCLEOD, WARDEN, OKLAHOMA STATE PENITENTIARY, APPELLEE
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 petitioner's claims were without merit and that the trial court's denial of relief was correct.
An inmate sought federal habeas corpus relief, claiming his state conviction was unlawful due to constitutional deprivations. He had previously sought…
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 Federal Constitutional Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Thomas D. Mayfield, an inmate of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, brought this habeas corpus proceeding seeking his release on the ground that his conviction was unlawful because he had been deprived of Federal Constitutional rights. The record discloses that on two different occasions the petitioner unsuccessfully sought similar relief in the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals. See Ex parte Mayfield, Okl.Cr., 322 P. 2d 1073. The petitioner did not thereafter seek review in the Supreme Court of the United States.
It has been held repeatedly that petitions for habeas corpus by prisoners convicted in State Courts will not be entertained by Federal Courts until review has been sought by the highest State Court and by the Supreme Court of the United States, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254; Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 70 S.Ct. 587, 94 L.Ed. 761, affirming 10 Cir., 172 F. 2d 668; White v. Ragen, 324 U.S. 760, 65 S.Ct. 978, 89 L.Ed. 1348; Ex parte Hawk, 321 U.S. 114, 64 S.Ct. 448, 88 L.Ed. 572.
The trial court, however, heard the petitioner’s testimony and denied relief upon concluding that such testimony did not sustain the allegations of the petition. We agree with that conclusion.
The principal complaint of the petitioner was that he had been charged with the offense of assault with intent to commit rape, and that no such crime was defined by the laws of the State of Oklahoma. 21 Okl.Stat.Ann. § 681 provides that every person who is guilty of an assault with intent to commit any felony may be punished by imprisonment in the State penitentiary. This section, and the section providing punishment for attempts to commit crimes, 21 Okl.Stat. Ann. § 42, have both been held to be applicable in cases of attempted rape. Ex parte Smith, 95 Okl.Cr. 370, 246 P. 2d 389; Hamrick v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 50, 184 P. 2d 807; Collins v. State, 59 Okl. Cr. 18, 55 P. 2d 790.
The evidence does not sustain petitioner’s contention that he had not been fully advised of his legal rights prior to entering a plea of guilty without counsel, or that he had been mistreated upon arrest in any manner which v/ould affect his conviction. See Ex parte May-field, supra.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1950)
- Ex parte Hawk, 321 U.S. 114 (U.S. 1944)
- White v. Ragen, 324 U.S. 760 (U.S. 1945)
- Darr v. Burford, 172 F.2d 668 (10th Cir. 1949)