DONALD L. VELASQUEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
B. J. RHAY, SUPERINTENDENT, WASHINGTON STATE PENITENTIARY, 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.
A petitioner convicted of possessing seized property has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the search and seizure, even if they deny ownership of the premises.
Petitioner was convicted of possession of property seized during a search. The district court dismissed his habeas corpus petition, finding he lacked …
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 Peyton V. Rowe cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from the dismissal of a petition for habeas corpus.
The district court held that petitioner lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of a search and seizure since he denied that the premises searched were his. Petitioner was convicted of possession of the property seized in the search, and his standing is therefore established by Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 263-264, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960).
The district court dismissed the petition on the further ground that petitioner would not be eligible for immediate release even if the convictions which he challenged were found to be invalid since he would still be required to serve a separate consecutive sentence which he did not attack. This ground for denying relief on habeas corpus was rejected by the Supreme Court in Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, 88 S.Ct. 1549, 20 L.Ed.2d 426 (1968), decided after the district court’s ruling.
Appellant’s motion to. quash appellee’s brief is denied. Appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel on this appeal is also denied. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. If appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel is renewed on remand, the district court may wish to consider the desirability of appointing counsel in view of the difficult issues presented by appellant’s petition.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Colbert, 474 F.2d 174 (5th Cir. 1973)
-
United States v. Elbert Lamar Boston, 510 F.2d 35 (9th Cir. 1974)
-
United States v. Cobb, 432 F.2d 716 (4th Cir. 1970)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1960)
- Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54 (U.S. 1968)