Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Edward J. A. Albrecht v. Louis Nelson

Edward J. A. Albrecht v. Louis Nelson, 462 F.2d 623 (9th Cir. 1972)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-07-24
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: Albrecht, a California prisoner convicted of murder, appeals from the District Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The basis of Al-brecht’s petition was his claim that his guilty plea was involuntary because it was the product of coercion on the part of his trial counsel. The District Court conducted an evidentiary hearing, but it could find no merit to Albrecht’s contention. We affirm. From the evidence adduced at the hearing, the District Court determined: (1) Albrecht was influenced; but not legally coerced, by his counsel, and (2) Al-brecht’s plea was primarily motivated by his fear of the death penalty which was based upon his affection for his child.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Edward J. A. Albrecht v. Louis Nelson. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
3 opinions
ALBRECHT v. NELSON,462 F.2d 623(9th Cir. 1972)
EDWARD J. A. ALBRECHT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. LOUIS NELSON,
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
No. 26635.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 28, 1972.
Rehearing Denied July 24, 1972.
Page 624
Donald C. Duchow, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Robert R. Granucci, Richard N. Light, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Before ELY, TRASK, and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Albrecht, a California prisoner convicted of murder, appeals from the District Court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The basis of Albrecht's petition was his claim that his guilty plea was involuntary because it was the product of coercion on the part of his trial counsel. The District Court conducted an evidentiary hearing, but it could find no merit to Albrecht's contention. We affirm.

[2] From the evidence adduced at the hearing, the District Court determined: (1) Albrecht was influenced, but not legally coerced, by his counsel, and (2) Albrecht's plea was primarily motivated by his fear of the death penalty which was based upon his affection for his child. From these facts, the court concluded that the plea was not constitutionally infirm.

[3] We cannot, of course, disturb the challenged decision unless it is clearly erroneous.SeeMoss v. Craven,427 F.2d 139(9th Cir. 1970); Knowles v. Gladden,378 F.2d 761(9th Cir. 1967). On the record before us, we cannot find error. There was substantial justification for concluding, as did the District Court, that Albrecht's plea was valid.SeeParker v. North Carolina,397 U.S. 790, 90 S.Ct. 1458, 25 L.Ed.2d 785 (1970); McMann v. Richardson,397 U.S. 759, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970); Brady v. United States,397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970); Knowles v. Gladden,supra.

[4] Affirmed.Page 625