ROOSEVELT HOPKINS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

5th Cir. | 1972-04-06
No. 71-3104
458 F.2d 393 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1972) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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 court held that the district court correctly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was convicted of robbery and attempted murder in Florida state court and sentenced to life imprisonment. After exhausting state remedies, he…

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:

Hopkins appeals from an order of the district court denying his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

Appellant was convicted upon trial by jury in the Dade County, Florida Criminal Court of Record of the offenses of robbery and attempted murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. Hopkins v. State, Fla.App., 192 So. 2d 8 (1966), cert. denied, Fla., 200 So. 2d 812 (1967) . After exhausting state remedies, appellant filed his habeas petition in the court below alleging that (1) the Government knowingly used perjured testimony concerning identification; (2) he was entitled to have counsel present at his lineup; (3) identification testimony of the victim was insufficient; and (4) the trial court failed to direct an acquittal.

Rather than alleging facts in support of his assertions of perjury and insufficient identification, appellant set forth excerpts of trial testimony, all of which refer to his being identified by eyewitnesses at the time of the offense and at the lineup. These excerpts are relevant only to the sufficiency of the evidence from which the jury determined appellant’s guilt. Sufficiency of evidence is not grounds for federal habeas corpus relief. Pleas v. Wainwright, 5th Cir. 1971, 441 F. 2d 56; Summerville v. Cook, 5th Cir. 1971, 438 F. 2d 1196; Ful-ford v. Dutton, 5th Cir. 1967, 380 F. 2d 16. As to the allegation that he was denied counsel at the lineup, appellant was tried and convicted before the Supreme Court decided United States v. Wade, 1967, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149. Wade has been held not to be retroactively applied. Stovall v. Denno, 1967, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199; Harris v. Beto, 5th Cir. 1971, 438 F. 2d 116. Finally, the contention that the court erred in not directing an acquittal is patently without merit.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited (11 total)

View all 11 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw