EARL LESLIE ROBERTS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT
v.
H. C. CUPP, 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 correctly dismissed the habeas corpus petition because the state's custody did not violate federal constitutional rights.
Petitioner, convicted of armed assault and robbery in state court, filed a federal habeas corpus petition challenging his state custody. The district …
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 Benton V. Maryland cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq., by a prisoner in state custody.
A state court jury convicted petitioner of armed assault and robbery, and his conviction was affirmed by the Oregon Supreme Court in two opinions. State v. Roberts, 245 Or. 97, 420 P. 2d 391, and State v. Roberts, 249 Or. 139, 437 P. 2d 731.
The district court, in accordance with the procedure set forth in Selz v. California, 423 F. 2d 702 (9th Cir. 1970), had before it the reporter’s transcript of the state trial. It concluded that the State of Oregon’s custody of petitioner did not contravene a right guaranteed him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
Petitioner has not established before the district court or on this appeal, nor does it appear, that any of the circumstances exist as set forth in paragraphs numbered (1) to (8) of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). See Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963).
The district court’s opinion was written prior to Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969). However, the court was correct in its determination that the prohibition against double jeopardy does not apply to the facts of this case.
The district court’s findings are correct and the order of dismissal is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1963)
- Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (U.S. 1969)
- Selz v. The State OF Cal., 423 F.2d 702 (9th Cir. 1970)