PAUL WOODS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, 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 affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no denial of federally-protected rights in the state proceedings.
Appellant, serving a sentence for murder, sought habeas corpus relief after exhausting state remedies. The District Court held an evidentiary hearing …
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 Effective Assistance Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Paul Woods, a prisoner of the State of Texas, appeals from the denial of his petition for habeas corpus. We affirm.
The appellant is serving a sentence of ninety-nine years for the offense of murder with malice. The judgment was affirmed upon direct appeal, Woods v. State, 152 Tex.Cr.R. 525, 215 S.W. 2d 334 (1948), and the appellant has otherwise exhausted his state postconviction remedies.
The District Court appointed counsel for the appellant and held an evidentiary hearing on the merits of his contentions, at which the appellant and the two investigating officers testified. Habeas relief was denied with comprehensive findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The District Court held that appellant’s oral inculpatory statement, given when he was arrested, was admissible in evidence; that the appellant was afforded the effective assistance of competent counsel at every material step of the proceedings until he expressly waived the assistance of counsel during his trial; and that there was no showing of denial of any federally-protected right in the state proceedings. We have examined the record, including the trial transcript, and are convinced that the District Court’s judgment is correct. The District Court found there to be no merit in the specific contention that the referral of petitioner’s case directly to a grand jury without a preliminary examining trial was not constitutionally permissible. We agree with that conclusion. Scarbrough v. Dutton, 393 F. 2d 6 (5th Cir. 1968); Dillard v. Bomar, 342 F. 2d 789 (6th Cir. 1965), and cases there cited; Burdick v. Allgood, 270 F.Supp. 614 (E.D.La.1967); Collins v. Beto, 245 F.Supp. 639 (S.D.Tex.1965).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Lennard Coley and Paul Dabney Scogin, 441 F.2d 1299 (5th Cir. 1971)
-
Siwakowski v. Beto, 455 F.2d 915 (5th Cir. 1972)
Authorities Cited
- Dillard v. Bomar, 342 F.2d 789 (6th Cir. 1965)
- Scarbrough v. Dutton, 393 F.2d 6 (5th Cir. 1968)