Murphy v. Beto, 27799 Summary Calendar.

Decision Date26 September 1969
Docket NumberNo. 27799 Summary Calendar.,27799 Summary Calendar.
Citation416 F.2d 98
PartiesCharles Donald MURPHY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dr. George J. BETO, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Charles Donald Murphy, pro se.

Nola White, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Tex., Austin, Tex., for appellee.

Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and CARSWELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to new Rule 18 of the Rules of this court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5th Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804, Part I.

The appellant, a Texas convict, was convicted of felony theft as a recidivist, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Having exhausted the state remedies available to him, he petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court, which denied relief without first holding an evidentiary hearing.

Appended to and made part of this opinion is the opinion of the district court, as yet unpublished. For the reasons so well set forth in that opinion, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

CHARLES DONALD MURPHY,

Petitioner versus CIVIL ACTION No. 69-H-362

DR. GEORGE J. BETO, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

Filed: April 21, 1969

Memorandum and Order:

Petitioner, Charles Donald Murphy, a prisoner in state custody, has forwarded to this court a petition for the writ of habeas corpus and an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted in this court only and the clerk is directed to file the petition.

The petitioner challenges his confinement on the following grounds:

(1) That he was deprived of due process of law because he was denied an examining trial;

(2) That he was denied the assistance of counsel by being deprived of an examing trial;

(3) That he was denied due process of law because the prosecution was permitted to introduce into evidence a prior conviction which was not alleged in the indictment;

(4) That a prior conviction alleged for enhancement was void because it was based upon a void indictment;

(5) That it was error for the trial judge to inform the jury of the range of punishment possible for the offense in the charge because it was a bifurcated trial and at that stage guilt was the only issue; and

(6) That he was deprived of due process because the trial judge was the district attorney at the time of one of his convictions alleged for enhancement.

The petitioner's first and second contentions are without merit. This court has held that "a preliminary hearing before a magistrate is not a federal constitutional right which, if denied, requires a petitioner's release on habeas corpus." Pappillion v. Beto, 257 F.Supp. 502, 503 (S.D.Tex.1966). Moreover, counsel was appointed for him several months before trial. He does not allege that his attorney did not pursue his defense with vigor. See Scarbrough v. Dutton, 393 F.2d 6, 7 (5 CA 1968).

The petitioner's third contention was disposed of by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals thusly:

"Appellant\'s last contention is that the court erred in admitting at the hearing on punishment evidence of a prior conviction which had not been alleged in the indictment. It is not necessary that a prior conviction which is used merely to show the accused\'s reputation at the hearing on punishment in a bifurcated trial, be alleged in the indictment."

Murphy v. State, 424 S.W.2d 231, 233 (Tex.Crim.App.1968).

Insofar as this court's power of review is concerned, it has been held that an alleged error in admitting evidence of prior unrelated crimes is not a basis for federal habeas corpus relief. Prater v. Myers, 226 F.Supp. 19 (E.D.Pa.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 1005, 84 S.Ct. 1942, 12 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1964).

The petitioner's fourth contention is based upon the claim that the prior indictment failed to state an offense. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals specifically held that it did. In a federal court, whether an offense is sufficiently alleged in an indictment is not a proper subject for inquiry on habeas corpus, unless...

To continue reading

Request your trial
56 cases
  • Flores v. Johnson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • 31 Marzo 1997
    ...Siwakowski v. Beto, 455 F.2d 915, 916 (5th Cir.1972); Richardson v. State of Texas, 425 F.2d 1372, 1373 (5th Cir.1970); Murphy v. Beto, 416 F.2d 98, 100 (5th Cir.1969); Woods v. State of Texas, 404 F.2d 332, 332 (5th 94. See Tarpley v. Estelle, 703 F.2d 157, 162 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied......
  • Smith v. Smith, Civ. A. No. 14304
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • 23 Diciembre 1970
    ...424 F.2d 117, 178 (5th Cir. 1970). Accord, McDonald v. Sheriff of Palm Beach, Florida, 422 F.2d 839 (5th Cir. 1970); Murphy v. Beto, 416 F.2d 98 (5th Cir. 1969); Gomez v. Beto, 402 F.2d 766 (5th Cir. The principle that the State has the burden of proof in all criminal cases and that the acc......
  • People v. Hall
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 11 Septiembre 1990
    ...] 483 F2d, at 786-787." [5th Cir. (1973) ] Id., 420 U.S. at pp. 118-119, 95 S.Ct. at pp. 865-866. (Emphasis added.) See also Murphy v. Beto, 416 F.2d 98 (CA 5, 1969); McCoy v. Wainwright, 396 F.2d 818 (CA 5, 1968); Scarbrough v. Dutton, 393 F.2d 6 (CA 5, 1968); cf. Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 ......
  • DelVecchio v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 17 Diciembre 1993
    ...judge because he has prosecuted a defendant in the past. Corbett v. Bordenkircher, 615 F.2d 722, 723-24 (6th Cir.1980); Murphy v. Beto, 416 F.2d 98, 100 (5th Cir.1969). This rule is consistent with the Supreme Court's cases. Prosecuting a defendant in one case is not the kind of action from......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT