WILLIAM C. BECKER, 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 appellant's claims were without merit because the cited Supreme Court decisions were not retroactive and there was no showing of constitutional violation.
Appellant was convicted of armed robbery in Texas state court. He filed a petition for habeas corpus relief in federal district court, asserting groun…
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:
On September 2, 1965, this appellant was convicted by a jury in a Texas state court of the crime of armed robbery. An appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was, at his request in open court, dismissed. On July 18, 1966, the petition for habeas corpus relief was filed in the United States District Court. Two of the three asserted grounds for relief were predicated upon Miranda v. State of Arizona1 and United States v. Wade.2 Since these decisions are not to be given retrospective effect,3 these contentions, even if otherwise meritorious, are of no avail. The conviction antedated Escobedo v. State of Illinois4 but the record supports no Escobedo issue.
There was no showing that the failure of the officers promptly to take the appellant before a state magistrate caused anything detrimental to his defense or contributed to his conviction. Hence, this was no violation of any right protected by the United States Constitution.5
Moreover, the District Court might well have dismissed the petition on the ground that appellant had deliberately by-passed the orderly procedure of the state courts.6
Affirmed.
. 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, June 13, 1966.
. 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, June 12, 1967.
. Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199.
. 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977.
. Luton v. State of Texas, 5 Cir., 1962, 310 F. 2d 445, cert. den. 372 U.S. 923, 83 S.Ct. 744, 9 L.Ed.2d 729 (1963).
. Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adkins v. Beto, 462 F.2d 802 (5th Cir. 1972)
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- FAY v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (U.S. 1963)
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1967)
- Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1967)
- Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1964)
- Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 (U.S. 1966)
- Jackson v. Missouri, 372 U.S. 923 (U.S. 1963)
- Rich v. California, 372 U.S. 923 (U.S. 1963)
- Luton v. State OF Tex. & H. E. Moore, 310 F.2d 445 (5th Cir. 1962)