VERNON OTIS BEAVERS, APPELLANT,
v.
DR. GEORGE J. BETO, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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 defendant's confession was not unconstitutionally admitted into evidence because the relevant legal standards at the time of his trial did not require the presence of counsel.
The defendant confessed after interrogation and warnings, but without being informed of his right to counsel. He was illiterate and could not read pos…
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 Supreme Court Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The defendant, Vernon Otis Beavers, appeals from an order of the district court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Beavers asserts that his signed confession was unconstitutionally placed in evidence against him.
The court below found that Beavers signed the confession in question after 30 or 40 minutes of interrogation. When the interrogation began, the police officers in charge warned Beavers of his right.to remain silent and that anything he said could be used against him at a trial. They failed to warn him, however, of his right to counsel. Signs prominently placed around the walls of the police station and jailhouse proclaimed this right, but Beavers is illiterate and could not read the signs. Beavers argues that his constitutionally protected right to counsel was violated, citing Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799; Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 1964, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977; Miranda v. State of Arizona, 1966, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. Beavers’s case went to trial before the Supreme Court decided Escobedo and Miranda. Neither ease has a retroactive application. Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 1966, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772,16 L.Ed.2d 882, Marion v. Harrist, 5 Cir. 1966, 363 F. 2d 139. Under the rules prevailing before Escobedo, Beavers’s sixth amendment right to counsel was not violated.
Beavers also contends that his confession was coerced. The record does not support that contention.
The judgment of the district court is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schneider v. Wainwright, 375 F.2d 446 (5th Cir. 1967)
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1963)
- Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1964)
- Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 (U.S. 1966)
- Marion v. Grady Harrist, 363 F.2d 139 (5th Cir. 1966)