FRED GUADALUPE TRUJILLO, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRY C. TINSLEY, WARDEN OF THE COLORADO 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 a state prisoner's claims of insufficient evidence and an improper jury instruction on flight are not reviewable on federal habeas corpus unless they rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
Appellant, a state prisoner, sought federal habeas corpus relief from his Colorado conviction for burglary and assault. His claims of insufficient evi…
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 Habeas Corpus Review Of State Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The trial court denied, without hearing, appellant Trujillo’s petition for ha-beas corpus relief from a judgment of a Colorado state court sentencing him for burglary and assault with intent to commit robbery. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the conviction (Trujillo v. People, Colo., 377 P. 2d 948), and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari (374 U.S. 849, 83 S.Ct. 1912, 10 L.Ed.2d 1069).
The prisoner urges that the evidence is insufficient because of the lack of a positive identification and because of an improper instruction on flight. Both of these grounds were urged in, and rejected by, the Colorado Supreme Court.
Errors of a state court in a case over which it has jurisdiction are not reviewable on federal habeas corpus: unless there has been a deprivation of constitutional rights such as to render the judgment void, or to amount to a denial of due process. Bizup v. Tinsley, 10 Cir., 316 F. 2d 284, 285; Gay v. Graham, 10 Cir., 269 F. 2d 482, 485. In the case before us the attack on the sufficiency of the evidence raises no constitutional question. The objections to the identification go only to the credibility of the witness and the weight to be given her testimony. They are not grounds for federal habeas corpus. United States ex rel. Brogan v. Martin, 3 Cir., 238 F. 2d 236, 237. The Colorado Supreme Court held the instruction on flight to be proper (377 P. 2d 949) and no constitutional infirmity appears. The trial court did not err in dismissing the petition without a hearing because, taking the allegations as true, no ground for relief is established.
On this appeal the prisoner-raises for the first time the point that, he was deprived of the assistance of counsel when his case was before the Colorado Supreme Court. The point was not presented to the trial court and, lienee, is not before us for review, Latham v. Crouse, 10 Cir., 320 F. 2d 120, 123, certiorari denied 375 U.S. 959, 84 .S.Ct. 449, 11 L.Ed.2d 317.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maxwell v. Stephens, 348 F.2d 325 (8th Cir. 1965)
-
Hickock v. Crouse, 334 F.2d 95 (10th Cir. 1964)
-
Wolfs v. Britton, 509 F.2d 304 (8th Cir. 1975)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Latham v. Crouse, 320 F.2d 120 (10th Cir. 1963)
- GAY v. Marcell Graham, 269 F.2d 482 (10th Cir. 1959)
- Bizup v. Tinsley, 316 F.2d 284 (10th Cir. 1963)
- Latham v. Crouse, 375 U.S. 959 (U.S. 1963)
- Schexnayder v. Hunter, 375 U.S. 959 (U.S. 1963)
- Amato v. New York, 374 U.S. 849 (U.S. 1963)
- United States ex rel. Earl A. Brogan v. Martin, 238 F.2d 236 (3d Cir. 1956)