LORA CLARK, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
J. S. HOPPER, WARDEN, GEORGIA STATE PRISON, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

5th Cir. | 1974-04-04
No. 73-3689
Before BELL, SIMPSON and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
491 F.2d 1389 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1974)

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 did not err in denying federal habeas relief, finding the state proceedings were adequate and the guilty pleas valid.


Facts & Procedural History

A Georgia state prisoner appealed the denial of federal habeas corpus relief concerning his 1968 guilty pleas to armed robbery. State habeas relief ha…

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:

This appeal is by a Georgia state prisoner from the denial of federal habeas relief directed against his 1968 pleas of guilty to three counts of armed robbery on which he received concurrent sentences. State habeas relief had theretofore been denied. Clark v. Caldwell, 229 Ga. 612, 193 S.E. 2d 816 (1972).

There was a full evidentiary hearing in the state habeas court and the district court concluded that the state records were such as not to require a further hearing. Although not expressed in specifics in its order, we perceive that the district court made its own conclusions of law, based on the state records, that appellant had been afforded a full and fair hearing in the state habeas court, that the state court factual findings were amply supported, and that the pleas of guilty were knowingly and voluntarily entered, and that appellant was not denied his right to effective counsel.

The procedure followed by the district court complied with Townsend v. Sain, 1963, 372 U.S. 293, 312-314, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770, and 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(d). See also Allen v. Stynchcombe, 5 Cir., 1970, 421 F. 2d 1399. We find no error in the procedure followed or in the ruling on the merits of the asserted claims.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw