DR. GEORGE J. BETO, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL D. CONLEY, 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 district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief based on the failure to warn the defendant of his right to remain silent.
Conley was convicted of felony theft and sentenced as an habitual criminal. Incriminatory statements were used against him at trial, and he was not ad…
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 V. Illinois cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is from a judgment granting habeas corpus to Conley, a State prisoner convicted of felony theft, and having been twice previously convicted of felonies, under mandatory life sentence as an habitual criminal as provided by Article 63 of the Vernon’s Ann.Texas Penal Code.1
Conley’s trial and conviction in the State court took place on July 22, 1964, just one month after the Supreme Court’s decision in Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977, but long before Miranda v. Arizona, 1966, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. Conley filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas which was denied without written opinion on May 23, 1966.
After Conley’s arrest, incriminatory statements were extracted from him which were introduced in evidence against him upon his trial. The testimony at the federal habeas corpus hearing was undisputed that Conley was not advised of his right to remain silent. The evidence was in dispute as to whether he requested the aid of counsel before making the admissions, but there was no dispute that he was not offered counsel or advised of his constitutional right to counsel.
The district court granted the writ of habeas corpus without prejudice to the right of the State to retry Conley upon the indictment within a stated reasonable time. The district court based its decision solely on the failure to warn Conley of his right to remain silent, thereby following its earlier decision in Payton v. Beto, C.A. No. 66-H-291, S.D. Tex., Oct. 14, 1966. That decision was later reversed by this Court. Texas, et al. v. Payton, 5th Cir. 1968, 390 F. 2d 261.
There are many factual differences between this case and Payton but none requiring a different result. So much written in the full opinion reversing Payton has application to this case that to repeat much the same thoughts would be superfluous. For the reasons fully set forth in that opinion, the judgment of the district court is reversed and the case remanded with instructions to deny the relief requested and dismiss the Writ, without prejudice to Conley to reapply in the State court in which he was convicted.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
. See Conley v. State, Tex.Cr.App.1966, 390 S.W. 2d 276.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peters v. Rutledge, 397 F.2d 731 (5th Cir. 1968)
-
Boyer v. City OF Orlando, 402 F.2d 966 (5th Cir. 1968)
-
Phelper v. Decker, 401 F.2d 232 (5th Cir. 1968)
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1964)
- The State OF Tex. & Dr. George J. Beto v. Payton, 390 F.2d 261 (5th Cir. 1968)