FRED D. MCCREARY, APPELLANT,
v.
LAWRENCE E. WILSON, WARDEN CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, SAN QUENTIN, 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.
The court held that the constitutional standards existing at the time of the conviction, not later ones, apply to the appellant's claims.
Appellant pleaded guilty to murder in 1962 and was sentenced. He later sought habeas corpus, claiming his plea was motivated by incriminating statemen…
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 Escobedo Warnings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On September 27, 1962, appellant was convicted by the Superior Court of the State of California of the crime of murder of the second degree and given an indeterminate sentence of five years to life imprisonment.
On April 13, 1966, after unsuccessfully seeking relief in the State Supreme Court, he requested of the United States District Court leave to file in that court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in forma pauperis. Leave was denied and he has appealed.
Appellant would rely on the 5th and 6th (and 14th) Amendments. But the most he asserts in the petition and in other papers submitted to the district court is that his guilty plea was motivated by incriminating statements made to the police during in-custody interrogation, at which he was refused legal counsel and not advised of his right against self-incrimination.
Granted his assertions, if gauged by the standards declared in Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) and Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964), would tender issues requiring a hearing; but here they are to be tested against the requirements existing in 1962. Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966) makes it unmistakably clear that at that time the failure to meet these constitutional requirements was not alone sufficient ground for relief.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1964)
- Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 (U.S. 1966)