Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

James Arthur Newberry v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

406 F.2d 1325

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1969-02-10
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of the Court, this case has been placed on the summary calendar for disposition without oral argument. 1 Newberry appeals from the denial of his petition for habeas corpus after a full evidentiary hearing in the district court. He is confined by authority of a fifteen year sentence for assault with intent to commit murder with malice, which was imposed on March 3, 1965, in the 42nd Judicial District Court of Taylor County, Texas. He was convicted upon his plea of guilty in proceedings at which he was represented by privately retained counsel. Newberry contends that his confessions and guilty plea were coerced; that the punishment was excessive; and that he was denied his right to take a direct appeal. The district court stated reasons for denying relief in a comprehensive and detailed memorandum opinion.

Citator

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

Cited by
2 opinions
NEWBERRY v. BETO,406 F.2d 1325(5th Cir. 1969)
James Arthur NEWBERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. George J. BETO,
Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 26700.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
February 10, 1969.
Page 1326
James Arthur Newberry, pro se.

Crawford C. Martin, Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., Allo B. Crow, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Nola White, First Asst. Atty. Gen., A.J. Carubbi, Jr., Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert C. Flowers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for appellee.
Before BELL, AINSWORTH, and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of the Court, this case has been placed on the summary calendar for disposition without oral argument.1

Newberry appeals from the denial of his petition for habeas corpus after a full evidentiary hearing in the district court. He is confined by authority of a fifteen year sentence for assault with intent to commit murder with malice, which was imposed on March 3, 1965, in the 42nd Judicial District Court of Taylor County, Texas. He was convicted upon his plea of guilty in proceedings at which he was represented by privately retained counsel.

Newberry contends that his confessions and guilty plea were coerced; that the punishment was excessive; and that he was denied his right to take a direct appeal. The district court stated reasons for denying relief in a comprehensive and detailed memorandum opinion. A careful study of the record has left us with no doubt as to the correctness of that court's findings and conclusions.

The judgment is due to be and it is hereby affirmed.Page 1331
  1. In order to establish a docket control procedure, the Fifth Circuit adopted new Rules 17-20 on December 6, 1968. See Wittner v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969,406 F.2d 1165, Fn 1 and Appendix thereto. ↩