JOHN A. BRAXTON, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, FLORIDA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, 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 denying habeas corpus relief based solely on a factual dispute with state court findings is not error, especially when the state hearing was adequate.
Petitioner sought habeas corpus relief, claiming state officials knowingly used perjured testimony. The state trial court held an evidentiary hearing …
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 State Court Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Braxton’s petition for habeas corpus relief from his Florida conviction and sentence was denied by the court below, and he appeals. The sole question raised, the claim of knowing use by state officials of perjured testimony at his trial, had been decided adversely to petitioner-appellant at a full evidentiary hearing by his trial court. The District Court of Appeals of Florida affirmed the trial court on appeal.
The federal habeas petition was denied by the court below without evidentiary hearing, on the basis that an adequate hearing on the state level satisfied the requirements of Townsend v. Sain, 1963, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770, as applied by us in Gotcher v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1971, 444 F. 2d 696; Bretti v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1971, 439 F. 2d 1042; and Tyler v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1968, 391 F. 2d 993.
Objection was not made below to the completeness or the fairness of the state court hearing and resultant findings of fact. Rather the petitioner disagreed factually with the result. The district court correctly noted that the state court’s findings of fact were presumptively correct, Title 28, U.S.C. Sec. 2254, and refused to disturb them.
It was not error to deny habeas relief sought solely on the basis of a dispute as to the facts found.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1963)
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Tyler v. Beto, 391 F.2d 993 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Bretti v. Louie L. Wainwright, 439 F.2d 1042 (5th Cir. 1971)
- Gotcher v. Beto, 444 F.2d 696 (5th Cir. 1971)