MAYNARD FRED EDWARDS, APPELLANT,
v.
G. P. LLOYD AND E. J. OBERHAUSER, APPELLEES

9th Cir. | 1970-05-21
No. 24697
Before HAMLEY and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges, and POWELL, District Judge.
426 F.2d 820 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1970)

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.


Holding

The district court correctly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus without a hearing.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was convicted of possession of heroin for sale in state court and sought a writ of habeas corpus. The district court denied the petition wit…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a denial by the district court of appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He was convicted, in a non-jury trial, of the crime of possession of heroin for sale under the provisions of the California Health and Safety Code, § 11500.5. After a study of the state court record, the district judge denied the petition without a hearing.

The record before the district court, and now before us, meets all of the requirements of Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 312-318, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed. 2d 770 (1963) and 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 Beyond question, the trial judge accurately interpreted his judicial function and correctly decided: (1) that the merits of the factual dispute were resolved in the state court hearing; (2) that the factual determination by the state court was fairly supported by the record as a whole; and (3) that the fact finding procedure employed by the state court was adequate to afford a full and complete hearing. Moreover, we hold that the district judge correctly applied the federal law to the state court’s findings on the facts.

We find it unnecessary to speak on the effect, if any, of the presumption created by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

. As amended November 2, 1966, 80 Stat. 1105.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw