Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Willard Broxson, Appellant, v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections,state of Florida, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. - 372 F.2d 944
Feb. 2, 1967
Willard Broxson, in pro. per.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., James G. Mahorner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and BELL and GOLDBERG, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Broxson, a Florida state prisoner serving concurrent sentences entered on pleas of guilty to robbery and attempted robbery, was denied habeas corpus relief in the District Court. As we stated in Busby v. Holman, 5 Cir., 1966, 356 F.2d 75, a plea of guilty, if voluntarily and understandingly made, is conclusive as to the defendant's guilt, admitting all of the facts charged and waiving all nonjurisdictional defects in the prior proceedings against him. The threshold question, given the fact of a guilty plea, is whether the plea of guilty was voluntarily and understandingly made. Thus the sole question presented on this appeal is whether Broxson's allegations form such a contrary basis as to warrant reversal for a hearing on the question of whether the pleas of guilty were coerced. All of the other errors asserted occurred prior to the pleas and may not now form the basis for collateral relief until and unless the pleas of guilty are set aside.
We have carefully studied the application for writ of habeas corpus as well as the entire file and have reached the firm conclusion that the allegations, taken separately or in sum, fail to make out a basis for a hearing on the issue of coercion. The District Court did not err in denying the relief sought.
Affirmed.