Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Willie Floyd Law v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

370 F.2d 369

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1966-12-15
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: The only substantial question raised on this appeal is the correctness of the judgment of the trial court denying the writ of habeas coipus to appellant on the ground that the state court had permitted introduction into evidence of a confession claimed to be involuntary. Without reaching the question of voluntariness of the confession, we conclude that this case is controlled by our recent opinion in White v. Beto (5 Cir.) 367 F.2d 557, Dec. Oct. 24, 1966 in which it was held that “the guilty plea under the circumstances is conclusive as to defendant’s guilt, admits all the facts charged and waives all non-jurisdictional defects in the prior proceedings.” The judgment is affirmed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Willie Floyd Law v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
21 opinions
LAW v. BETO,370 F.2d 369(5th Cir. 1966)
Willie Floyd LAW, Appellant, v. Dr. George J. BETO, Director, Texas
Department of Corrections, Appellee.
No. 23493.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
December 15, 1966.
Weldon Funderburk, Larry B. Funderburk, Houston, Tex., for appellant.

Sam R. Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Houston, Tex., Allo B. Crow, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., Waggoner Carr, Atty. Gen., of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, First Asst. Atty. Gen., T.B. Wright, Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Howard M. Fender, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for appellee Dr. George J. Beto.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and AINSWORTH and DYER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The only substantial question raised on this appeal is the correctness of the judgment of the trial court denying the writ of habeas corpus to appellant on the ground that the state court had permitted introduction into evidence of a confession claimed to be involuntary.

Without reaching the question of voluntariness of the confession, we conclude that this case is controlled by our recent opinion in White v. Beto (5 Cir.)367 F.2d 557, Dec. Oct. 24, 1966 in which it was held that "the guilty plea under the circumstances is conclusive as to defendant's guilt, admits all the facts charged and waives all non-jurisdictional defects in the prior proceedings."

The judgment is affirmed.Page 370