CLARENCE L. JENKINS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN W. WINGO, WARDEN KENTUCKY STATE PENITENTIARY, 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 judge's finding of a voluntary guilty plea was appropriate based on the state trial court record.
Appellant pleaded guilty in state court to armed robbery, housebreaking, and malicious shooting. He sought a writ of habeas corpus, alleging his plea …
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 Voluntariness Of Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus before a District Judge in the Western District of Kentucky. Appellant had previously pled guilty in the Allen County Circuit Court of Kentucky on three charges concerning armed robbery, housebreaking and malicious shooting with intent to kill. The sentences were made to run concurrently, the longest one of them being 15 years.
The state trial court records indicate conclusively that appellant had pled not guilty; that he had had counsel appoint ed for him; that subsequently he appeared before a state trial judge, and with counsel present, changed his plea to guilty on all three counts. The sentences, as recited above, were recommended to the state trial judge by the state attorney in open court.
It seems obvious from the state trial record and the careful questioning of appellant by the state trial judge that the District Judge’s finding that this was a voluntary plea of guilty was one which could appropriately be made on the basis of the state trial court record.
For these reasons and others set forth in the opinion of the District Judge, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed, 353 F.Supp. 285.