RUFUS ALONZO THOMASON, PETITIONER,
v.
JOHN H. KLINGER, RESPONDENT
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.
An appellant cannot raise new grounds for reversal on appeal that were not presented to the trial court, absent a manifest miscarriage of justice.
Appellant, convicted in state court, sought habeas corpus relief in federal district court, raising three specific grounds. The district court denied …
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 Preservation Of Issues For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Rufus Alonzo Thomason, serving a California state court sentence following his conviction on a plea of guilty to a violation of Cal.Penal Code, § 288, appeals from a district court order denying his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Thomason has also moved in this court for appointment of counsel to represent him on the appeal.
In his district court application Thom-ason urged three grounds for relief, namely: (1) the corpus delecti was not established by evidence upon which the information is based; (2) the evidence purporting to establish the crime is hearsay and therefore inadmissible; and (3) the state court erroneously denied his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty after he discovered a witness who v/ould establish Thomason’s innocence.
None of these grounds are renewed in support of Thomason’s appeal. None of the grounds for reversal which he now urges, were presented in his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Except where necessary to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice, no such showing being made here, an appellant may not urge, as a ground for reversal, a theory which he did not present in the trial court. See Daugharty v. Gladden, 9 Cir., 257 F. 2d 750, 758.
The motion for appointment of counsel is denied. The order under review is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bakersfield City Sch. Dist. OF Kern Cnty. v. Boyer, 610 F.2d 621 (9th Cir. 1979)
-
United States v. Wilber N. Olander, 584 F.2d 876 (9th Cir. 1978)
-
Helena Rubinstein, Inc. v. BAU, 433 F.2d 1021 (9th Cir. 1970)
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
- Daugharty v. Gladden, 257 F.2d 750 (9th Cir. 1958)