ERNEST VIVALLAVA PINEDA, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
WALTER E. CRAVEN, WARDEN, 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 affirmed the district court's denial of relief, finding that the state court's factual determinations were well supported by the record.
This case involves an appeal from an order denying relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 after an evidentiary hearing. The case has a prior history before thi…
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 Warrantless Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court denying relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2243, following an evidentiary hearing. The case has been here before, Pineda v. Craven (9 Cir. 1970) 424 F. 2d 369.
The ease raises questions as to (1) the validity of a warrantless arrest in a home on probable cause for possession of narcotics, (2) the effect of failure to give notice of entry into the home, (3) whether Pineda was denied effective assistance by counsel, and (4) the validity of a 1951 conviction. The judgment is affirmed on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. Pineda v. Craven, 327 F.Supp. 1062 (1971).
We add the following. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971), cited by both parties, was decided after the decision below. It is conceded by the parties that the discussion of warrantless entry to make an arrest on probable cause was dictum and Justice Harlan's opinion stated “[T]he Court again leaves the issue open.” Id. p. 492, 91 S.Ct. p. 2051. Coolidge does not solve the problem.
Pineda continues to complain about his 1951 conviction. Its validity was an issue in the first hearing in the District Court. In reversing and ordering an evi-dentiary hearing on other issues, this court in Pineda v. Craven (424 F. 2d 369, 372) upheld the validity of the 1951 conviction.
We have reviewed the whole record of the state court proceedings and conclude that the factual determinations there made are well supported by the record.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. The State OF Ariz., 471 F.2d 848 (9th Cir. 1972)
-
United States v. Blake, 632 F.2d 731 (9th Cir. 1980)
Authorities Cited
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1971)
- Pineda v. Craven, 424 F.2d 369 (9th Cir. 1970)