Pappillion v. Beto, Civ. A. No. 66-H-541.
| Decision Date | 30 August 1966 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 66-H-541. |
| Citation | 257 F. Supp. 502 |
| Parties | John PAPPILLION, Petitioner, v. Dr. George J. BETO, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
John Pappillion, pro. se.
Waggoner Carr, Atty. Gen., of Texas, and Hawthorne Phillips, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Texas, Austin, Tex., for respondent.
The petitioner, John Pappillion, a prisoner in state custody, has applied to this court for leave to file in forma pauperis a petition for the writ of habeas corpus. His application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted in this court only, and the clerk is directed to file the petition.
Petitioner complains of his conviction for robbery by assault in the Criminal District Court #4 of Harris County, Texas, on August 18, 1965.
Petitioner first complains of his arrest in Houston, Texas. He claims that the arrest warrant by which he was arrested had been "presigned" by the Texas Justice of the Peace and was therefore invalid. He further alleges that he was not taken before a magistrate as required by Texas law.
Petitioner also complains about a second "arrest" which took place in New York City, New York. He alleges that there was no warrant, that he was again not taken before a magistrate, and that he was "kidnapped" to Texas. Apparently, petitioner was on bond following the first arrest, for petitioner indicates that the "kidnapping" was carried out by "Texas officers and a bondsman".
Assuming that petitioner was twice illegally arrested in violation of his federal constitutional rights and twice not taken before a magistrate as required by Texas law, still no ground is alleged upon which the writ of habeas corpus could issue.
A preliminary hearing before a magistrate is not a federal constitutional right which, if denied, requires a petitioner's release on habeas corpus. See Collins v. Beto, D.C., 245 F.Supp. 639, 640, and cases there cited.
Petitioner's present confinement is based upon a conviction by a jury after indictment, not upon any illegal arrest or arrests or "kidnapping" which may have occurred. Petitioner does not allege that his conviction was based in whole or in part on any evidence seized as a result of the arrests, or any confessions flowing from them, or any other connection or relationship between his arrests and his trial and conviction. The fact of an illegal arrest does not itself render the victim immune from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States ex rel. Orsini v. Reincke
...792, 97 L.Ed. 1360 (1953). To epitomize the rule, an illegal arrest alone does not merit habeas corpus relief. See Pappillion v. Beto, 257 F. Supp. 502 (S.D.Tex.1966). The underlying reason for excluding evidence come upon illegally as articulated in the cases cited above reveals that conce......
-
Scarbrough v. Dutton
...See Graves v. Eyman, 9 Cir., 1967, 373 F.2d 324; Chester v. People of State of California, 9 Cir., 1966, 355 F.2d 778; Pappillion v. Beto, S.D.Tex., 1966, 257 F.Supp. 502; cf. Hamilton v. State of Alabama, 1961, 368 U.S. 52, 82 S.Ct. 157, 7 L.Ed.2d 114. Also, Appellant had counsel for at le......
-
Burdick v. Allgood
...on habeas corpus. Dillard v. Bomar, 342 F.2d 789 (CA 6 1965), cert. den. 382 U.S. 883, 86 S.Ct. 176, 15 L.Ed.2d 123; Pappillion v. Beto, 257 F.Supp. 502 (S.D.Tex.1966); Collins v. Beto, 245 F.Supp. 639 (S.D.Tex. 1965). 4. Petitioner claims that he was entrapped and enticed into crime by a F......
-
Martin v. Texas Youth Council
...We hold that the petition at bar was not sufficient to inform the court of the facts on which relief could be granted. Pappillion v. Beto, D.C., 257 F.Supp. 502. The court did not abuse his discretion with his Had the petition been sufficient, the court should have held a hearing to determi......