ADOLPHUS BROOKS, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, FLORIDA DIVISION 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 properly denied the petition for habeas corpus based on the state court record.
Appellant was convicted of rape and sentenced to death in Florida state court. After exhausting state post-conviction remedies, he filed a federal hab…
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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Adolphus Brooks appeals from the United States District Court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. We affirm.
The appellant was convicted of rape in the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida, and sentenced to death on August 29, 1961. The sentence was commuted in 1966 to life imprisonment.
An order denying a prior petition for habeas corpus was appealed to this court which affirmed the lower court, but remanded with directions that the district judge order a stay of execution for 60 days so that application could be made to the Florida courts for post-conviction relief. Brooks v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1965, 345 F. 2d 641.
Thereafter the appellant, through court-appointed counsel, filed a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction as authorized by Rule 1.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A., formerly known as “Rule One.”
The trial court held a plenary hearing on the merits of the motion to vacate, and stated detailed reasons for denying relief. Upon appeal, the judgment was affirmed. Brooks v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 194 So. 2d 303.
The appellant subsequently filed a second petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court, alleging numerous grounds for relief. The respondent filed the record of the State court Rule One proceedings, including the transcript of testimony and the court’s reasons for judgment. The District Court denied the writ on the basis of the State record, as is authorized by the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2254, stating detailed written reasons.
After careful examination of the entire record, we have concluded that the District Court properly decided the case upon the basis of the State court record. We find no error, wherefore the judgment must be and is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boyer v. City OF Orlando, 402 F.2d 966 (5th Cir. 1968)
-
Muniz v. Beto, 434 F.2d 697 (5th Cir. 1970)
Authorities Cited
- Adolphus Brooks v. Wainwright, 345 F.2d 641 (5th Cir. 1965)
- Adolphus Brooks v. State, 194 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)