Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

William A. Tahl v. Joseph O'connor, Sheriff, San Diego County

460 F.2d 1068

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-06-16
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, denied to petitioner, a state pris *1069 oner, after his plea of guilty to two counts of murder, one count of attempted robbery, one count of rape, and one count of grand theft auto, while represented by counsel. In re Tahl, 1 Cal.3d 122, 129, 81 Cal.Rptr. 577, 460 P.2d 449 (1969). The petition rests upon four grounds, all treated at length by the United States District Court Judge in an excellent, painstaking decision appearing at 336 F.Supp. 576. We affirm the District Court’s judgment finding each of the petitioner’s contentions of error to be without merit. We also cite the triumvirate cases of Brady v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed William A. Tahl v. Joseph O'connor, Sheriff, San Diego County. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
TAHL v. O'CONNOR,460 F.2d 1068(9th Cir. 1972)
WILLIAM A. TAHL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. JOSEPH O'CONNOR, SHERIFF, SAN DIEGO
COUNTY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
No. 72-1116.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 16, 1972.
Charles M. Sevilla (argued), San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.

Jay D. Coulter, Deputy Atty. Gen. (argued), Mark L. Christiansen, Deputy Atty. Gen., Doris H. Maier, Asst. Atty. Gen., Herbert L. Ashby, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California; Howard B. Turrentine, Judge.
Before BARNES, ELY and CARTER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] This is a petition for a writ ofhabeas corpus,denied to petitioner, a state prisoner,Page 1069after his plea of guilty to two counts of murder, one count of attempted robbery; one count of rape, and one count of grand theft auto, while represented by counsel. In re Tahl,1 Cal.3d 122, 129, 81 Cal.Rptr. 577,460 P.2d 449(1969).

[2] The petition rests upon four grounds, all treated at length by the United States District Court Judge in an excellent, painstaking decision appearing at336 F. Supp. 576.

[3] We affirm the District Court's judgment finding each of the petitioner's contentions of error to be without merit.

[4] We also cite the triumvirate cases of Brady v. United States,397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970); McMann v. Richardson,397 U.S. 759(1970); Parker v. North Carolina,397 U.S. 790, 90 S.Ct. 1458, 25 L.Ed.2d 785 (1970).

[5] Affirmed.Page 1172