Hyde v. Massey, 78-1783
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and AINSWORTH; PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 592 F.2d 249 |
| Parties | Jack R. HYDE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. D. MASSEY, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1783,78-1783 |
| Decision Date | 30 March 1979 |
Page 249
v.
R. D. MASSEY, Respondent-Appellee.
Fifth Circuit.
Page 250
Jack R. Hyde, pro se.
Edward R. Downing, Miami, Fla. (Court-appointed), for petitioner-appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Robert L. Bogen, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, Fla., for respondent-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judge, and CAMPBELL *, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner Jack R. Hyde was convicted in the state courts of Florida for first degree arson and for breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, Hyde v. State, Fla.App., 1976, 341 So.2d 1103. He subsequently brought this federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The District Court adopted the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate and denied relief. We affirm.
In this habeas petition, Hyde argues that the state trial court erred in refusing to suppress a handwritten confession, composed and signed by Hyde about three hours after he had been arrested. Hyde argues first that he was so intoxicated at the time of this confession that he was incapable of voluntarily and knowingly waiving his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. The District Court found that his argument was belied by the transcript from the state suppression hearing, and that finding is not clearly erroneous. Hyde's second argument is that the handwritten confession was obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the precepts of Miranda v. Arizona, 1966, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. At the beginning of the interview at which Hyde gave his confession, he was read his Miranda rights; he gave no indication that he wanted an attorney present and at the end of his confession he wrote that he understood his rights, knew what he was doing, and was giving his statement freely. In these circumstances, Hyde's confession was properly admitted, notwithstanding the fact that earlier in the evening, just after his arrest, he had requested and spoken to an attorney. See Michigan v. Mosely, 1975, 423 U.S. 96, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313.
AFFIRMED.
---------------
* District Judge of the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jurek v. Estelle, 78-1374
...subsidiary findings of fact but even as to the ultimate question of the voluntariness of the confession. See, e. g., Hyde v. Massey, 592 F.2d 249, 250 (5th Cir. 1979); United States ex rel. Young v. Wainwright, 490 F.2d 96, 97 (5th Cir. 1974); Edwards v. Beto, 446 F.2d 18, 19 (5th Cir. 1971......
-
Tahtiyork v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-1196 SECTION P
...("Habeas corpus is not available to prisoners complaining only of mistreatment during their legal incarceration.") (quoting Hanberry, 592 F.2d at 249)). If, as Hanberry instructs, Eighth Amendment violations do not warrant release from prison, the Court is skeptical that it has subject matt......
-
Looney v. State
...Graham, 438 So.2d 946 (Fla.1983); Amek Bin Rilla v. Israel, 113 Wis.2d 514, 335 N.W.2d 384 (1983). The court stated in Cook v. Hanberry, [592 F.2d at 249]: "`Assuming arguendo that his allegations of mistreatment demonstrate cruel and unusual punishment, the petitioner is still not entitled......
-
Ndudzi v. Perez, Civil Action No. 5:20-CV-108
...("Habeas corpus is not available to prisoners complaining only of mistreatment during their legal incarceration.") (quoting Hanberry , 592 F.2d at 249 ). If, as Hanberry instructs, Eighth Amendment violations do not warrant release from prison, the Court is skeptical that it has subject mat......
-
Jurek v. Estelle, 78-1374
...subsidiary findings of fact but even as to the ultimate question of the voluntariness of the confession. See, e. g., Hyde v. Massey, 592 F.2d 249, 250 (5th Cir. 1979); United States ex rel. Young v. Wainwright, 490 F.2d 96, 97 (5th Cir. 1974); Edwards v. Beto, 446 F.2d 18, 19 (5th Cir. 1971......
-
Tahtiyork v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-1196 SECTION P
...("Habeas corpus is not available to prisoners complaining only of mistreatment during their legal incarceration.") (quoting Hanberry, 592 F.2d at 249)). If, as Hanberry instructs, Eighth Amendment violations do not warrant release from prison, the Court is skeptical that it has subject matt......
-
Looney v. State
...Graham, 438 So.2d 946 (Fla.1983); Amek Bin Rilla v. Israel, 113 Wis.2d 514, 335 N.W.2d 384 (1983). The court stated in Cook v. Hanberry, [592 F.2d at 249]: "`Assuming arguendo that his allegations of mistreatment demonstrate cruel and unusual punishment, the petitioner is still not entitled......
-
Ndudzi v. Perez, Civil Action No. 5:20-CV-108
...("Habeas corpus is not available to prisoners complaining only of mistreatment during their legal incarceration.") (quoting Hanberry , 592 F.2d at 249 ). If, as Hanberry instructs, Eighth Amendment violations do not warrant release from prison, the Court is skeptical that it has subject mat......