JOHN LEE BOWIE, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
DR. GEORGE J. BETO, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT-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 did not err in denying habeas corpus relief based on the state record, as at least one life sentence was validly imposed.
Appellant, serving two life sentences, sought habeas corpus relief, alleging denial of counsel in prior trials. The state trial court found counsel wa…
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 Summary Disposition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
In this pro se case appellant has failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, F.R.A.P., and it is therefore appropriate to dispose of this case summarily pursuant to Rule 9(c) (2) of this Court. Stout v. Broom, 5 Cir. 1969, 406 F. 2d 758.
Bowie, now on parole, was serving two life sentences for burglary of a private residence at night at the time he filed his petition for habeas corpus. The District Court denied relief on the basis of the state record. We affirm.
The life sentences were set by the juries which convicted the appellant in 1931. One of the indictments alleged two prior convictions for enhancement of sentence, but the other did not.
Appellant contends that he was denied assistance of counsel at the trials resulting in the 1931 convictions and the trials in 1926 and 1929.
After an evidentiary hearing, the state trial court held that the appellant was represented by counsel at the 1931 trials. The court made no findings concerning the 1926 and 1929 trials. The United States District Court denied habeas relief on the basis of the state record. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254.
If the life sentence based on the prior convictions was the only sentence outstanding against the appellant, it would be necessary to remand the cause for determination of appellant’s contention that he was denied counsel in the 1926 and 1929 trials. See Burgett v. Texas, 1967, 389 U.S. 109, 88 S.Ct. 258, 19 L.Ed.2d 319. Coextensive with that sentence however, is the other life sentence. As to it, we find no error in the District Court’s denial of habeas corpus relief. See Brown v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1967, 377 F. 2d 950.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Streator v. United States, 431 F.2d 567 (5th Cir. 1970)
Authorities Cited
- Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1967)
- Brown v. Beto, 377 F.2d 950 (5th Cir. 1967)
- Stout v. Sheriff, George A. Broom, 406 F.2d 758 (5th Cir. 1969)