Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Robert Ryan v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida

Robert Ryan v. Louie L. Wainwright, Dir., Div. of Corr., State of Fla., 424 F.2d 198 (5th Cir. 1970)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1970-04-24
Topic
bankruptcy

PER CURIAM: Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the ease on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 804, Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 526, Part I. In passing upon a habeas corpus petition filed by a state prisoner the United States District Courts are not required to hold a second evidentiary hearing on any point upon which a full and fair hearing was held at the State level, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Shinall v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Robert Ryan v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
9 opinions
RYAN v. WAINWRIGHT,424 F.2d 198(5th Cir. 1970)
Robert RYAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director,
Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 28757 Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 3, 1970.
Rehearing Denied April 24, 1970.
Page 199
Robert Ryan, pro se.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., State of Florida, Tallahassee, Fla., Morton J. Hanlon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, Fla., for respondent-appellee.
Before WISDOM, COLEMAN, and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969,409 F.2d 804, Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir., 1969,417 F.2d 526, Part I.

In passing upon a habeas corpus petition filed by a state prisoner the United States District Courts are not required to hold a second evidentiary hearing on any point upon which a full and fair hearing was held at the State level,28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Shinall v. Breazeale, 5 Cir., 1968,404 F.2d 785.

This is such a case. We affirm the judgment of the District Court which denied habeas relief.

On January 23, 1964, the petitioner, Robert Ryan, was given a full and complete Florida Rule 1 post conviction hearing by the Circuit Court of Pinellas County, Florida. The transcript is before us. It reflects that, represented by counsel, Ryan pleaded guilty to murder in the second degree. He had been indicted for murder in the first degree. He, at the time, had previously been convicted of a felony and then stood charged with an armed robbery. The armed robbery charge was nolle prossed and, on December 16, 1955, Ryan was sentenced to serve twenty-five years for second degree murder.

The transcript of the Florida hearing reflects that this petitioner, upon sound advice of competent counsel, knowingly and voluntarily entered the plea of guilty now under review. We, therefore, have no authority to interfere with the state court sentence.
Affirmed.Page 200
Page 202