JAMES RAY SPANN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
The court held that the parole revocation was valid because it was based on at least one unchallenged ground, even if another ground was potentially infirm.
Appellant's parole was revoked after a conviction for drawing a concealed weapon. He argued this conviction was unconstitutional due to lack of counse…
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 Assistance Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
James Ray Spann, a Florida state prisoner, appeals from the district court’s denial of habeas corpus relief. We affirm the judgment below.
Appellant was convicted on October 6, 1964 of robbery, and received a ten-year sentence. He was paroled on November 20, 1967. On December 17, 1968, appellant was convicted in Bradenton Municipal Court of drawing a concealed weapon, a misdemeanor, which carries a maximum jail sentence of sixty days and/or a $250.00 fine. Subsequently, on March 10, 1968, appellant’s parole was revoked after a hearing.
Appellant now contends that his parole revocation was based on a Constitutionally infirm conviction since he was denied assistance of counsel at his municipal court trial due to his indigency.
We do not find it necessary to consider the merits of appellant’s contention, since the record before this Court discloses that appellant’s parole was not revoked solely on the basis of the complained-of conviction. The parole revocation order states that appellant violated the conditions of his parole by (1) having been convicted of the misdemeanor; and (2) possessing a weapon, without the consent or knowledge of his supervisor. Appellant has not challenged the validity of the parole board’s latter finding, which standing alone justifies the revocation of his parole. See Amaya v. Beto, 5th Cir. 1970, 424 F. 2d 363; United States v. Clanton, 5th Cir. 1969, 419 F. 2d 1304.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mack v. McCUNE, 551 F.2d 251 (10th Cir. 1977)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Clanton, 419 F.2d 1304 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Amaya v. Beto, 424 F.2d 363 (5th Cir. 1970)