WESLEY EUGENE HANEY, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIS S. NELSON, WARDEN, CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON AT SAN QUENTIN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the petitioner's claims do not raise a federal question and that his statements were admissible under the law at the time of his conviction.
Petitioner was convicted of second-degree murder and appealed his federal habeas corpus petition after it was denied by the district court. He alleged…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federal Question cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Haney was convicted of second degree murder. He appealed through the state courts, and now his federal habeas corpus petition, denied in the district court without a hearing, is before us.
Haney’s bald allegation that he was unlawfully arrested does not generate a federal question. Fernandez v. Klinger, 9 Cir., 346 F. 2d 210, cert. den., 382 U.S. 895, 86 S.Ct. 191, 15 L.Ed.2d 152 (1965).
At his trial, the foreman of the jury reported that one juror could not agree to a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree. Defense counsel stipulated that the jury should return a verdict of guilty or not guilty of murder, leaving the judge to fix the degree. We cannot question this procedure since the right to a jury trial was not applied to the states until 1968. De Stefano v. Woods, 392 U.S. 631, 88 S.Ct. 2093, 20 L.Ed.2d 1308 (1968).
Haney made certain statements to police. He had been warned of his rights as required by Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964). He says he was not told he had an immediate right to appointed counsel, but this was not required until Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966). Haney was sentenced November 24, 1965.
He contends these statements were involuntarily made, but gives us not one fact to support such a conclusion.
The judgment of the district court is, then:
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Workman v. Cardwell, 471 F.2d 909 (6th Cir. 1972)
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1964)
- Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 (U.S. 1966)
- DeSTEFANO v. Woods, 392 U.S. 631 (U.S. 1968)
- Fernandez v. Klinger, 346 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1965)
- Bennett v. Adamowski, 382 U.S. 895 (U.S. 1965)
- Fernandez v. Klinger, 382 U.S. 895 (U.S. 1965)