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
Ray Vernon Upton, Appellant, v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department Ofcorrections, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. - 375 F.2d 117
March 23, 1967
Ray Vernon Upton, pro se.
Allo B. Crow, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Waggoner Carr, Atty. Gen. of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, First Asst. Atty. Gen., T. B. Wright, Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Howard M. Fender, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for appellee, Dr. George J. Beto.
Before BROWN, MOORE1 and BELL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, represented by two attorneys appointed by the Court, was convicted upon his plea of guilty in Culberson County, Texas. Thereafter he petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. A full plenary hearing was granted by the District Court, which appointed counsel to represent appellant in the prosecution of his petition. On the hearing appellant testified at length during which testimony he admitted that he was serving two sentences but only attacking one in his petition for a writ.
The District Court found with respect to the challenged conviction that appellant was accorded the effective assistance of competent counsel; that his plea of guilty to the offense charged was made knowingly, understandingly, and voluntarily after consultation with and upon the advice of his counsel; that appellant's conviction was not obtained in violation of any of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States; and that appellant was then serving a valid sentence imposed in Midland County, Texas, which appellant was not attacking. The denial of the writ is amply supported by the record.
Affirmed.
Of the Second Circuit, sitting by designation