LAWRENCE E. WALLACE, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT A. HEINZE, WARDEN, CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, REPRESA, CALIFORNIA, 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.
A guilty plea waives any claim that evidence was obtained through an unreasonable search, and a district court has inherent power to grant additional time for a return in a habeas corpus proceeding.
Appellant, a prisoner, sought a writ of habeas corpus after being convicted in state court. The state did not file its return to the order to show cau…
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 Application For Writ Of Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by Lawrence E. Wallace, a prisoner incarcerated in the Cali-forma State Penitentiary at Represa, from the judgment of the United States District Court dismissing his application for a writ of habeas corpus to effect his discharge from custody. Appellant was not entitled to the writ as if by default, because the respondent state did not file its return to the order to show cause within the time specified by the statute.1 Here, it appears that the District Court granted respondent additional time to do so, and we think the court possessed this inherent power. Granted that dispatch is the keynote in all phases of habeas corpus and that the statutory limitation of time is clearly directed to that end, there are instances — and this appears to be one of them — where more time is required to make a full and complete return. It is readily apparent that a full and complete return made in the first instance will in fact hasten a final determination on the merits. Nor can appellant be heard to urge that the evidence upon which the criminal charge was based was obtained by the prosecution upon an unreasonable search. It appears from the return that, at his arraignment in the State court, the defendant, appearing in person and with counsel, entered his plea of guilty to the charge against him. He was thereupon adjudged guilty and sentence was pronounced. “The conviction and sentence which follow a plea of guilty are based solely and entirely upon said plea and not upon any evidence which may have been improperly acquired by the prosecuting authorities.” Thomas v. United States, 290 F. 2d 696-697 (9th Cir. 1961). This conclusion renders unnecessary a consideration of appellant’s remaining points. The judgment is affirmed. . Issuance of writ; return; hearing; decision * * # The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained. It shall be returned within three days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is allowed. * * * 28 U.S.O. § 2243.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Browder v. Dir., Dep't of Corr. of Ill., 434 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1978)
-
United States ex rel. James Rogers v. Warden OF Attica State Prison, 381 F.2d 209 (2d Cir. 1967)
-
Leopold Joseph Doran v. Wilson, 369 F.2d 505 (9th Cir. 1966)
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Thomas v. United States, 290 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1961)