CALLETANO CISNEROS, JR., PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
DR. GEORGE J. BETO, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT-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.
A habeas corpus petitioner who pleads guilty does not require an evidentiary hearing if the plea was voluntary and understood.
Petitioner pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He filed a habeas corpus petition alleging ineffective counsel, but the al…
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 Evidentiary Hearing In Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the District Court’s order dismissing Appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus without an evidentiary hearing. We agree with the District Court that Petitioner failed to allege facts sufficient to necessitate an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, we affirm.
At his original trial before a Texas court, Petitioner pleaded guilty to murder with malice aforethought. In a subsequent sentencing proceeding, as provided by Texas law, he was sentenced to life imprisonment. The habeas corpus petition to the United States District Court, alleged that Petitioner did not have effective counsel at trial in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. In a traverse to a motion to dismiss for lack of specificity, Petitioner set out the details of his counsel’s alleged incompetence, which the trial judge found were directed solely to his attorney’s performance during the proceedings on the issue of punishment and in no way related to the validity of his plea of guilty at the trial.
We have repeatedly held that where a petitioner has pleaded guilty to charges a hearing in a subsequent habeas corpus proceeding is not necessitated if his pleadings show that the guilty plea was voluntary and that he understood the nature of his plea. See Streets v. Wainwright, 402 F. 2d 87 (5th Cir. 1968); Askew v. Alabama, 398 F. 2d 825 (5th Cir. 1968). In the instant case, Petitioner clearly failed to állege that his guilty plea was involuntary or the product of ignorance. The alleged incompetence of counsel düring a sentencing proceeding is not relevant to the validity of the guilty plea which preceded it.
We are sensitive to Petitioner’s argument that pleadings drafted by prisoners without the assistance of coun sel ought to be read liberally. But here the record is abundantly clear that the trial judge gave Petitioner every necessary opportunity to perfect and clarify his petition. The petition, on its face and with the most liberal reading that could be accorded, indicated he made no attack whatever on the guilty plea.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Limmie West, III v. State OF La., 478 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir. 1973)
Authorities Cited
- Askew v. State OF Ala., 398 F.2d 825 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Streets v. Louie L. Wainwright, 402 F.2d 87 (5th Cir. 1968)