JOHN WELDON FORBES, 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 appellant's claims concerned state procedural matters that did not amount to a denial of fundamental fairness, and thus were not grounds for federal habeas corpus relief.
The appellant, convicted of being an accomplice to murder, sought federal habeas corpus relief, alleging denial of his right to confront witnesses. He…
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 Fundamental Fairness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is taken from an order of the district court dismissing the habeas corpus petition of a Texas state prisoner. We affirm.
The appellant was convicted by a jury of being an accomplice to murder with malice and was sentenced by the jury to 3,000 years imprisonment. Forbes v. State, Tex. Cr.App.1974, 513 S.W. 2d 72, cert. denied 420 U.S. 910, 95 S.Ct. 830, 42 L.Ed.2d 840.
In his habeas petition filed below, the appellant contends that he was denied his right to confront witnesses against him. First, the state, required to prove the guilt of the principal beyond a reasonable doubt, was allowed to introduce the judgment of conviction and the sentence of the principal. Appellant argues that this deprived him of the right to cross-examine the witnesses who testified against the principal and the jurors who convicted him. The appellant also argues that the introduction of the principal’s sentence, also 3,000 years, prejudiced him. Finally, appellant contends that the state was allowed to take and use at trial the deposition of a material witness in the absence of the witness.1
The issues raised by appellant concern matters of state procedure which, absent a denial of fundamental fairness, will not be considered when raised in a habeas corpus petition. Blankenship v. Estelle, 5 Cir. 1977, 545 F. 2d 510; Gephart v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1971, 441 F. 2d 319, cert. denied 404 U.S. 966, 92 S.Ct. 342, 30 L.Ed.2d 286. A reading of the trial transcript and record fails to disclose that the alleged errors amounted to a denial of fundamental fairness. The judgment below is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
. Appellant was represented by counsel at the deposition, did not object to the taking of the testimony by such procedure and the entire proceeding was presided over by the state trial judge.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pentecost v. Estelle, 582 F.2d 1029 (5th Cir. 1978)
-
Bentford Earl Starling, Jr. v. Estelle, 651 F.2d 1082 (5th Cir. 1981)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Wilson v. Oregon, 420 U.S. 910 (U.S. 1975)
- Francisco-Romandia v. United States, 420 U.S. 910 (U.S. 1975)
- Finis Smith Blankenship v. Estelle, 545 F.2d 510 (5th Cir. 1977)
- Newman v. Estelle, 404 U.S. 966 (U.S. 1971)
- Fahy v. California, 404 U.S. 966 (U.S. 1971)
- Foley Ford Gephart v. Beto, 441 F.2d 319 (5th Cir. 1971)