WILLIAM R. WILSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ROBERT A. HEINZE, WARDEN, FOLSOM STATE PRISON, REPRESA, CALIFORNIA, ARTHUR L. OLIVER, ACTING WARDEN ET AL., APPELLEES
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 denial of habeas corpus was proper because the speedy trial claim was previously adjudicated and the confession claim was barred by non-retroactivity of Escobedo.
Appellant sought habeas corpus relief, alleging denial of speedy trial and improper admission of incriminating statements obtained without Miranda war…
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 Retroactivity Of Escobedo And Miranda cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is taken from a denial of habeas corpus. The writ was sought from the District Court on two grounds: (1) that appellant was denied his right to a speedy trial; (2) that incriminating statements introduced in trial were secured without advising him of his right to counsel or to remain silent, contrary to Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964).
The first ground was considered by the Supreme Court of California on direct appeal. People v. Wilson, 60 Cal.2d 139, 32 Cal.Rptr. 44, 383 P. 2d 452 (1963). In rejecting appellant’s contention the court stated grounds we find persuasive. 60 Cal.2d at 154, 32 Cal.Rptr. at 54, 383 P. 2d at 462:
“In the case at bench defendant has not shown — nor does it appear that he could show — that he was in any way prejudiced by the setting of his trial for a date approximately two months beyond the last day to which he had consented. At the time of his objection to such setting, more than seven months had already elapsed since the filing of the information, due in most part to numerous continuances granted at defendant’s request or with his consent; and defendant fails to demonstrate how a further delay of less than one-third of that duration could have affected in any respect the fairness of his subsequent trial.”
The second ground is without merit for the reason that Escobedo is not to be applied retroactively. Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1964)
- Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 (U.S. 1966)