Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Lee Lane, Pmb 60120 v. C. Murray Henderson, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary
Lee Lane, Pmb 60120 v. C. Murray Henderson, Warden, La. State Penitentiary, 480 F.2d 544 (5th Cir. 1973)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1973-06-06
- Topic
- general
PER CURIAM: Lee Lane, a prisoner of the State of Louisiana, has appealed from the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. We reverse the ruling below, and remand the cause for further proceedings. The. appellant received a life sentence on his plea of guilty on May 17, 1963, in the 20th Judicial District Court of Louisiana. Lane was not represented by counsel at plea; the minutes of the court recite that he then was indigent but waived the assistance of counsel. No direct appeal was taken from the judgment.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Lee Lane, Pmb 60120 v. C. Murray Henderson, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Authority status
- pending
- Cited by
- 7 opinions
LANE, PMB #60120 v. HENDERSON,480 F.2d 544(5th Cir. 1973)
LEE LANE, PMB #60120, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. C. MURRAY HENDERSON, WARDEN,
LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE.
No. 73-1417.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 6, 1973.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty., S. J. Dileo, Jr., Sp. Counsel, Baton Rouge, La., for respondent-appellee.
Before GEWIN, COLEMAN and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
[2] The appellant received a life sentence on his plea of guilty on May 17, 1963, in the 20th Judicial District Court of Louisiana. Lane was not represented by counsel at plea; the minutes of the court recite that he then was indigent but waived the assistance of counsel. No direct appeal was taken from the judgment. The record shows that Lane has, however, exhausted his available state remedies on the grounds presented in these proceedings. See State ex rel. Lane v. Henderson, La. 1972,263 La. 100,267 So.2d 209.Page 545
[3] The appellant contends that he did not knowingly and understandingly waive the assistance of counsel in his defense. The district court denied habeas relief on the basis of the record without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Included in that record is the transcript of the state court evidentiary hearing and a certified copy of the minutes of the judge who accepted the plea, but who no longer is serving on the court. It appears that the plea proceedings were not stenographically recorded by the court reporter and thus no transcript thereof is available.
[4] After careful consideration we have concluded that the state court hearing was not enough to resolve the issue as to waiver of counsel prior to the plea. Lane was unrepresented by counsel at his state habeas evidentiary hearing. See28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(5). His testimony at that hearing was ambiguous at best and the questions of the court and state's attorney did not serve to clarify it in several important particulars. No other witness testified at the state habeas hearing. The only evidence introduced on the state's behalf was a copy of the minutes at plea. No certificate or affidavit from the original trial judge was presented.
[5] We hold that the state court's evidentiary hearing was not so "full and fair" that the district court could safely accept its findings and conclusions as being correct. See28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Townsend v. Sain, 1963,372 U.S. 293,83 S.Ct. 745,9 L.Ed.2d 770; Hunter v. Swenson, 8 Cir. 1971,442 F.2d 625, cert. den.404 U.S. 863,92 S.Ct. 76,30 L.Ed. 2d 107; O'Neal v. Smith, 5 Cir. 1969,413 F.2d 269; Fortner v. Balkcom, 5 Cir. 1967,380 F.2d 816. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment below and remand the cause for further proceedings, including an evidentiary hearing at which Lane should have counsel appointed to represent him, if he so desires.
[6] Reversed and remanded, with directions.Page 547
- Rule 18, 5 Cir., Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I. ↩