Washington v. Beto
| Decision Date | 24 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 29649.,29649. |
| Citation | 424 F.2d 1035 |
| Parties | Webb WASHINGTON, Petitioner, v. Dr. George J. BETO, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Webb Washington, pro se.
Crawford Martin, Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for respondent.
Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.
This case is before us on petitioner Washington's application for a certificate of probable cause under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253, which was denied by the district court. We hereby grant the certificate of probable cause. Moreover, since we think the record clearly indicates the total lack of a factual basis for the district court's denial of Washington's application for a writ of habeas corpus, we choose to reach that issue and remand to the district court for further consideration. See Sullens v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 545, 547.
Petitioner Washington is a Texas prison inmate serving a life sentence for murder with malice. He was convicted in a Texas state court on his plea of guilty. Although he did not appeal his conviction, Washington filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the convicting court, alleging (1) that his court-appointed counsel was ineffective and (2) that his plea of guilty was coerced by his court-appointed counsel, in that counsel urged him to plead guilty to avoid the imposition of the death penalty even though counsel knew that the State had already filed a notice of intention not to seek the death penalty. The state trial court denied his application following a factual hearing on the issues raised, and the trial court's denial of the application was upheld without opinion by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Having exhausted his state remedies, Washington then filed his application for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court, raising the two issues he had asserted unsuccessfully in the state courts. The district court denied relief, accepting the findings of fact and conclusions of law which had been entered by the state trial court. This was an inadequate factual basis for a denial of relief, for the record reveals that the state trial court made no findings of the operative facts, but in actuality entered mere conclusions of fact and law.1 See Huffman v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1969, 414 F.2d 1094.
There is nothing in the record before us to support the state trial court's findings. Moreover, since the district court did not have before it a copy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Wuagneux
......Sands, Jay Moskowitz, Miami, Fla., for defendant-appellant. . William C. Bryson, Robert J. Erickson, Washington", D. C., for plaintiff-appellee. . Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. . \xC2"......
-
United States v. Prudden
......Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Joseph M. Howard, John M. Brant, Attys., Tax Div., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Edward F. Boardman, U. S. Atty., John L. Briggs, U. S. Atty., Middle District of Florida, for plaintiff-appellant. . C. ......
-
Montgomery v. Caldwell, 72-1567.
...appeal in forma pauperis, and summarily vacate and remand the case. Haggard v. Alabama, 439 F.2d 260 (5th Cir. 1971); Washington v. Beto, 424 F.2d 1035 (5th Cir. 1970). This was the second habeas petition filed in the district court in which the applicant challenged his 1961 convictions for......
-
Qualls v. Shaw, 75-3206
...judgment below should be summarily vacated and the cause remanded. See Montgomery v. Caldwell, 5 Cir. 1972, 457 F.2d 767; Washington v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1970, 424 F.2d 1035. The appellant, an inmate of the Texas prison system, has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. App......