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
G. W. Carroll, Appellant, v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department Ofcorrections, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. - 402 F.2d 61
Oct. 24, 1968, Rehearing Denied Jan. 31, 1969
G. W. Carroll, pro se.
Crawford C. Martin, Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., Thomas F. Keever, Asst. Atty. Gen., Houston, Tex., Robert E. Owen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for appellee.
Before DYER and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges, and CABOT, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
G. W. Carroll appeals from the denial of his petition for habeas corpus. We affirm.
The appellant is confined by authority of a life sentence imposed under Article 63 of the Texas Penal Code, upon his third conviction for a felony. The judgment was affirmed upon direct appeal. Carroll v. State, 1957, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 511, 301 S.W.2d 108.
The appellant's principal contentions are of (1) double jeopardy; (2) use of perjured testimony at his trial; (3) use of a void prior conviction for enhancement of sentence; and (4) interference by the state with his attempt to obtain the testimony of a witness.
The district court held an evidentiary hearing at which the appellant, represented by court-appointed counsel, testified. The court stated detailed reasons for denying the writ in a presently unpublished memorandum and order.
We have carefully examined the entire record, including the transcript of the hearing in the district court. We have concluded that the district court's decision is correct in point of law, and that its findings of fact were not 'clearly erroneous.' Tyler v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1968, 391 F.2d 993; DiPrima v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1967, 373 F.2d 797, cert. denied 390 U.S. 1012, 88 S.Ct. 1266, 20 L.Ed.2d 164 (1968); King v. Heard, 5 Cir. 1962, 310 F.2d 127, cert. denied 375 U.S. 854, 84 S.Ct. 114, 11 L.Ed.2d 81 (1963).
The judgment is
Affirmed.