Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Roland Wayne Wright v. Walter E. Craven, Warden

Roland Wayne Wright v. Walter E. Craven, Warden, 461 F.2d 1109 (9th Cir. 1972)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-06-19
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • interpreting California’s habitual criminality statute, Cal. Penal Code § 644(b) (repealed July 1, 1977)

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Roland Wayne Wright v. Walter E. Craven, Warden. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
39 opinions
WRIGHT v. CRAVEN,461 F.2d 1109(9th Cir. 1972)
ROLAND WAYNE WRIGHT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. WALTER E. CRAVEN, WARDEN,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 71-1949.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 19, 1972.
Don Jacobson, Deputy Atty. Gen. (argued), Don Johnson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

Charles G. Miller (argued), of McKenna Fitting, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Before KOELSCH, HUFSTEDLER and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] The District Court, in this habeas corpus action, ruled that under California law an admission by a defendant of prior felony convictions, where those convictions are to be used to enhance his sentence on the present offense, is the "functional equivalent" of a plea of guilty to a separate charge [see, Womack v. Craven,431 F.2d 1191, 1192 (9th Cir. 1970)], and, therefore, it may not be accepted unless the defendant understands the consequences of the admission. We are in accord with the analysis of the court in its well-reasoned opinion, reported at 325 F. Supp. 1253.Page 1110

[2] After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the District Court found that petitioner Wright was not aware of the consequences of his admission of prior convictions, and granted the writ. As the findings are supported by the evidence, we affirm the judgment for the reasons stated in the District Court opinion.

[3] Affirmed.1Page 1118
  1. We note that the writ granted by the District Court merely sets aside petitioner's admission, and bars the State of California from imposing habitual offender punishment based upon that admission. As in cases where guilty pleas are vacated, the State is not precluded by this judgment from conducting further proceedings on the issue. ↩