GILBERT DOYLE FLANAGAN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
DR. GEORGE J. BETO, 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.
Federal habeas courts do not review state court evidentiary rulings unless a constitutional right was violated.
Appellant, a state prisoner, sought federal habeas corpus relief, claiming the state trial court erred in refusing to hear evidence on his motion for …
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 Federal Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is taken from an order of the district court denying the petition of a Texas state prisoner for the writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.
Appellant is presently serving a 45 year sentence for robbery by assault, having been convicted upon trial by jury. The conviction was affirmed at Flanagan v. State, Tex.Cr.App.1968, 432 S.W. 2d 85.
In his habeas petition filed in the district court appellant contended as grounds for relief (1) that the trial court erred in refusing to hear evidence on his motion for a new trial and (2) that the trial court erred in not granting the motion for a new trial. These issues were considered on direct appeal and appellant has therefore exhausted his state remedies. The district court denied relief on the basis of the record, stating that appellant failed to raise a constitutional question.
Federal habeas courts do not sit to review the actions of state courts on questions involving the admission of evidence unless there has been a deprivation of a constitutional right. Lisenba v. California, 1941, 314 U.S. 219, 62 S.Ct. 280, 86 L.Ed. 166; Williams v. Wainwright, 5th Cir., 1970, 427 F. 2d 921. The state trial court ruled that appellant’s motion for a new trial failed to comply with state requirements in that it was not sworn to, and was therefore insufficient. Howard v. State, 1957, 308 S.W. 2d 45, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 466; Olliff v. State, 1954, 276 S.W. 2d 839, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 336, 41 Tex.Jur.2d § 141. Clearly this was not in violation of appellant’s federally protected rights. The judgment below is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pleas v. Wainwright, 441 F.2d 56 (5th Cir. 1971)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219 (U.S. 1941)
- Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 427 F.2d 921 (5th Cir. 1970)