MANUEL ZAMBRANO, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
W. J. ESTELLE, JR., DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT 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 the trial court's error in denying a mistrial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
Appellant was convicted of rape. During trial, a co-defendant pleaded guilty in the jury's presence, which appellant argued prejudiced the jury. The t…
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 Overwhelming Evidence Of Guilt cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, represented by court-appointed counsel, was convicted by a jury of rape and sentenced to fifty years imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed in Zambrano v. State, 478 S.W. 2d 500 (Tex.Cr.App., 1972).
In his habeas petition appellant raised grounds for relief which had been presented on direct appeal. He contended that after a jury had been impanelled to try him and two co-defendants, one of the co-defendants, Castillo, entered a plea of guilty in the jury’s presence. Appellant moved for a mistrial, which was denied. Castillo moved for a severance, which was denied. The appellant objected to any further proceedings on the guilty plea conducted in the jury’s presence. The objection was overruled. Appellant contends that Castillo’s guilty plea so prejudiced the jury against him as to deprive him of a fair trial.
The District Court denied the petition, finding that although the trial court erred in denying the mistrial, the evidence against appellant was so strong that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
In Loftis v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1971, 450 F. 2d 599, this Court held that error in allowing a co-defendant to plead guilty in the jury’s presence is harmless if the evidence leaves no room for any reasonable doubt as to guilt. See, also, Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969); Stubbs v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1972, 468 F. 2d 248.
In the present case, a reading of the trial transcript reveals such overwhelming evidence of guilt as to leave no room for reasonable doubt. As the District Court found, the victims were subjected to an ordeal of several hours by the defendants; identification was positive; the victims also identified the automobile; the defendants offered no defense.
The denial of habeas relief is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 (U.S. 1969)
- Loftis v. Beto, 450 F.2d 599 (5th Cir. 1971)
- Stubbs v. Louie L. Wainwright, 468 F.2d 248 (5th Cir. 1972)