G. W. CARROLL, 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 district court's denial of the petition for habeas corpus was correct in point of law and fact.
G. W. Carroll, serving a life sentence under Texas Penal Code Article 63, appealed the denial of his habeas corpus petition. He raised issues of doubl…
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 Sentence Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
G. W. Carroll appeals from the denial of his petition for habeas corpus. We affirm.
The appellant is confined by authority of a life sentence imposed under Article 63 of the Texas Penal Code, upon his third conviction for a felony. The judgment was affirmed upon direct appeal. Carroll v. State, 1957, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 511, 301 S.W. 2d 108.
The appellant’s principal contentions are of (1) double jeopardy; (2) use of perjured testimony at his trial; (3) use of a void prior conviction for enhancement of sentence; and (4) interference by the state with his attempt to obtain the testimony of a witness.
The district court held an evidentiary hearing at which the appellant, represented by court-appointed counsel, testified. The court stated detailed reasons for denying the writ in a presently unpublished memorandum and order. er , „ „ , ,, ,. We have carefully examined the entire j . , ... . , . record, including the transcript of the hearing in the district court. We have concluded that the district court’s decision is correct in point of law, and that its findings of fact were not “clearly erroneous.” Tyler v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1968, 391 F. 2d 993; DiPrima v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1967, 373 F. 2d 797, cert. denied 390 U.S. 1012, 88 S.Ct. 1266, 20 L.Ed.2d 164 (1968); King v. Heard, 5 Cir. 1962, 310 F. 2d 127, cert. denied 375 U.S. 854, 84 S.Ct. 114,11 L.Ed.2d 81 (1963).
The judgment is Affirmed
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tyler v. Beto, 391 F.2d 993 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Peaden v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 854 (U.S. 1963)
- Rosales v. California, 375 U.S. 854 (U.S. 1963)
- California v. Noroff, 390 U.S. 1012 (U.S. 1968)
- Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Am. Motors Corp., 390 U.S. 1012 (U.S. 1968)
- King v. Heard, 310 F.2d 127 (5th Cir. 1962)
- Bernes v. Edward J. Henning in Bankr. of Quality Paper Co., 310 F.2d 127 (5th Cir. 1962)
- DI Prima v. Beto, 373 F.2d 797 (5th Cir. 1967)
- United States v. Grover C. Crowe and William E. Veasey Grover C. Crowe, 373 F.2d 797 (3d Cir. 1967)