JORD O. HALE, APPELLANT,
v.
LAWRENCE E. WILSON, WARDEN, ETC., 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 while the Escobedo rule applies prospectively, new claims of coerced confession and inadequate counsel are not foreclosed by a guilty plea.
Appellant pleaded guilty to criminal charges and later sought habeas corpus, initially claiming his plea was induced by a confession violating Escobed…
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 Prospective Application Of Judicial Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted and sentenced in 1960 on his plea of guilty to charges of violating sections 209 and 211 of the California Criminal Code. His petition for habeas corpus was based upon the theory that his guilty plea was induced by a confession obtained in violation of the rule of Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964). The district court denied the petition without a hearing on the ground that the Escobedo rule is to be applied prospectively only. See Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966).
By allegations appearing for the first time in briefs filed in this court, appellant materially expanded his claim to raise the more general issues of whether his guilty plea was the product of alleged threats and promises and an allegedly coerced confession (see, e. g., Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman v. Claudy, 350 U.S. 116, 118, 76 S.Ct. 223, 100 L.Ed. 126 (1956); Chambers v. State of Florida, 309 U.S. 227 n. 2, 60 S.Ct. 472, 84 L.Ed. 716 (1945); White v. Pepersack, 352 F. 2d 470, 472 (4th Cir. 1965); Wright v. Dickson, 336 F. 2d 878, 882 (9th Cir. 1964) ; Jones v. Cunningham, 297 F. 2d 851 (4th Cir. 1962)); and whether he was adequately represented by counsel in the submission of his guilty plea. Wilson v. Reagan, 354 F. 2d 45 (9th Cir. 1965); Wright v. Dickson, supra, 336 F. 2d at 883; Jones v. Cunningham, 313 F. 2d 347 (4th Cir. 1963). As the cited cases indicate, neither of these issues, if adequately alleged and ultimately proven, would be foreclosed by the guilty plea itself.
Because the second issue is wholly new and the first is substantially so, we affirm the judgment, but without prejudice to the right of the appellant to renew his present contentions in the district court in a new petition for habeas corpus. See Flemings v. Wilson, 365 F. 2d 267 (9th Cir. 1966).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. Wilson, 371 F.2d 911 (9th Cir. 1967)
-
Wilson v. Rose, 366 F.2d 611 (9th Cir. 1966)
-
Dalrymple v. Wilson, 366 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1966)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1964)
- Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 (U.S. 1966)
- Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1940)
- Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman v. Claudy, 350 U.S. 116 (U.S. 1956)
- Wright v. Dickson, 336 F.2d 878 (9th Cir. 1964)
- Jones v. Cunningham, 313 F.2d 347 (4th Cir. 1963)
- Jones v. Cunningham, 297 F.2d 851 (4th Cir. 1962)
- White v. Pepersack, 352 F.2d 470 (4th Cir. 1965)
- Wilson v. Reagan, 354 F.2d 45 (9th Cir. 1965)
- Flemings v. Wilson, 365 F.2d 267 (9th Cir. 1966)