Fred Guadalupe Trujillo v. Harry C. Tinsley, Warden of the Colorado State Penitentiary
Fred Guadalupe TRUJILLO, Appellant, v. Harry C. TINSLEY, Warden of the Colorado State Penitentiary, Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
The trial court denied, without hearing, appellant Trujillo’s petition for ha-beas corpus relief from a judgment of a Colorado state court sentencing him for burglary and assault with intent to commit robbery. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the conviction (Trujillo v. People, Colo., 377 P.2d 948 ), and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari ( 374 U.S. 849 , 83 S.Ct. 1912 , 10 L.Ed.2d 1069 ).
The prisoner urges that the evidence is insufficient because of the lack of a positive identification and because of an improper instruction on flight. Both of these grounds were urged in, and rejected by, the Colorado Supreme Court.
Errors of a state court in a case over which it has jurisdiction are not reviewable on federal habeas corpus: unless there has been a deprivation of constitutional rights such as to render the judgment void, or to amount to a denial of due process. Bizup v. Tinsley, 10 Cir., 316 F.2d 284, 285 ; Gay v. Graham, 10 Cir., 269 F.2d 482, 485 . In the case before us the attack on the sufficiency of the evidence raises no constitutional question. The objections to the identification go only to the credibility of the witness and the weight to be given her testimony. They are not grounds for federal habeas corpus. United States ex rel. Brogan v. Martin, 3 Cir., 238 F.2d 236, 237 . The Colorado Supreme Court held the instruction on flight to be proper ( 377 P.2d 949 ) and no constitutional infirmity appears. The trial court did not err in dismissing the petition without a hearing because, taking the allegations as true, no ground for relief is established.
On this appeal the prisoner-raises for the first time the point that, he was deprived of the assistance of counsel when his case was before the Colorado Supreme Court. The point was not presented to the trial court and, *187 lienee, is not before us for review, Latham v. Crouse, 10 Cir., 320 F.2d 120, 123 , certiorari denied 375 U.S. 959 , 84 .S.Ct. 449, 11 L.Ed.2d 317 .
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 19 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Henry Wagenknecht v. Sherman Crouse, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary, Lansing, Kansas
- William L. Maxwell v. Dan D. Stephens, Superintendent of Arkansas State Penitentiary
- Jay Randall Wolfs v. R. G. Britton, Superintendent, Tucker Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction
- Martis C. Scalf v. John E. Bennett, Warden, Iowa State Penitentiary, Fort Madison, Iowa
- Hickock v. Crouse
- Albert E. Reese v. H. J. Cardwell, Warden, Ohio Penitentiary
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.