NATHANIEL ROEBUCK BEATTY, APPELLANT,
v.
J. O. KEARNEY, WARDEN, UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY, ATLANTA, GEORGIA, 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 federal prisoner cannot challenge a state conviction in federal habeas corpus proceedings, and the parole revocation was supported by sufficient evidence.
Appellant, a federal prisoner whose parole was revoked due to a state court conviction, sought a writ of habeas corpus challenging the state convictio…
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 Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
In this appeal from an order by the U. S. District Court denying appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, appellant assigns as grounds for relief several alleged defects in a state court conviction, which conviction led to the revocation of his parole from federal custody. He further asserts that the District Court erred in not granting him a hearing on his petition.
Appellant’s contentions are without merit. Since petitioner was at the time of the filing of his petition and is now in federal custody as a result of the revocation of his parole from a federal conviction, “he has no grounds for review in this Court of his state conviction whether improperly obtained or not.” Washington v. Hagan, 3rd Cir., 1960, 287 F. 2d 332, cert. denied, 1961, 366 U.S. 970, 81 S.Ct. 1934, 6 L.Ed.2d 1259.
Thus there was no need to hold a hearing in this case. Even if we construe the petition as attacking the revocation of appellant’s parole, we are satisfied that the Parole Board had before it sufficient evidence to justify revocation. As stated in Wright v. Settle, 8th Cir. 1961, 293 F. 2d 317, 319, the question of whether a parole violation has occurred is subject to being raised in habeas corpus “only on the narrow basis that what was before the Board compelled the conclusion as a matter of law that there had been no violation of the conditional release or parole, and that the Board therefore acted without authority in making the revocation."
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Langley, 438 F.2d 91 (5th Cir. 1970)
-
United States ex rel. Santiago DeFILLO v. Fitzpatrick, 378 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1967)
-
Peacock v. Hughes, 427 F.2d 359 (5th Cir. 1970)
Authorities Cited
- Washington v. Hagan, 287 F.2d 332 (3d Cir. 1960)
- Brown v. California, 366 U.S. 970 (U.S. 1961)
- Brown v. Taylor, 366 U.S. 970 (U.S. 1961)
- Wright v. Settle, 293 F.2d 317 (8th Cir. 1961)