VERN WILMER CARPENTER, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
DR. GEORGE J. BETO, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENTAPPELLEE
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 a state convict must re-present issues to the Texas court under the amended Article 11.07 before being considered to have exhausted available state remedies.
Appellant, a Texas convict, sought federal habeas corpus relief, alleging denial of counsel in a prior conviction. The federal district court denied t…
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 Exhaustion Of State Remedies 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 ease summarily pursuant to Rule 9(c) (2) of this Court. Stout v. Broom, 5 Cir.1969, 406 F. 2d 758.
This appeal is taken from an order of the district court denying the petition of a Texas convict for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant is presently confined on a five year sentence for driving while intoxicated with a prior similar offense used for enhancement of punishment. Appellant filed a petition for habeas corpus in the trial court contending that he was denied counsel on his first conviction for drunken driving. Without holding an evidentiary hearing, that court found that appellant had been denied counsel as alleged. On review, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused to accept the findings of the trial court and denied relief.
Appellant then filed this petition for habeas corpus in federal court. After an evidentiary hearing the court below denied the petition without prejudice to appellant to file a petition in the state court pursuant to Article 11.07, Tex.C.Crim.P. We agree with the decision of the district court and affirm.
This court has consistently held that even though a state convict has exhausted all state remedies available prior to the effective date of Article 11.07, as amended, the issue should be re-presented to the Texas court for redetermination under Article 11.07, as amended, before he will be considered to have exhausted his available state remedies. Woolsey v. Beto, 5 Cir.1969, 412 F. 2d 748; Bruce v. Beto, 5 Cir.1968, 396 F. 2d 212; State of Texas v. Payton, 5 Cir. 1968, 390 F. 2d 261. Appellant’s habeas corpus petition in the state trial court was filed before the effective date of the amendment to Article 11.07 which amendment provides for a full eviden-tiary hearing on contested issues of fact. Appellant has therefore not exhausted all available state remedies.
The judgment below is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vera v. Beto, 422 F.2d 1052 (5th Cir. 1970)
-
Jones v. Vineyard, 438 F.2d 1231 (5th Cir. 1971)
-
Hicks v. Sheriff Clarence Jones, 453 F.2d 400 (5th Cir. 1972)
Authorities Cited
- The State OF Tex. & Dr. George J. Beto v. Payton, 390 F.2d 261 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Bruce v. Beto, 396 F.2d 212 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Stout v. Sheriff, George A. Broom, 406 F.2d 758 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Woolsey v. Beto, 412 F.2d 748 (5th Cir. 1969)