TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Robert Ryan v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida

Robert RYAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent-Appellee

Ryan v. Wainwright, 424 F.2d 198 (5th Cir. 1970)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 24, 1970
Docket
No. 28757
Judges
Wisdom, Coleman, Simpson
Citations
424 F.2d 198

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to 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 ease on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 804 , Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 526 , Part I.

In passing upon a habeas corpus petition filed by a state prisoner the United States District Courts are not required to hold a second evidentiary hearing on any point upon which a full and fair hearing was held at the State level, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); Shinall v. Breazeale, 5 Cir., 1968, 404 F.2d 785 .

This is such a case. We affirm the judgment of the District Court which denied habeas relief.

On January 23, 1964, the petitioner, Robert Ryan, was given a full and complete Florida Rule 1 post conviction hearing by the Circuit Court of Pinellas County, Florida. The transcript is before us. It reflects that, represented by counsel, Ryan pleaded guilty to murder in the second degree. He had been indicted for murder in the first degree. He, at the time, had previously been convicted of a felony and then stood charged with an armed robbery. The armed robbery charge was nolle prossed and, on December 16, 1955, Ryan was sentenced to serve twenty-five years for second degree murder.

The transcript of the Florida hearing reflects that this petitioner, upon sound advice of competent counsel, knowingly and voluntarily entered the plea of guilty now under review. We, therefore, have no authority to interfere with the state court sentence.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1970: 31971: 11972: 11973: 21995: 119702026peak 1970 · 3

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.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Murphy v. Houma Well Serv., & Eva C. Fontenot, 409 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1969) 443
Huth v. Southern Pac. Co., 417 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1969) 281
Cloudies Shinall v. C. E. Breazeale, 404 F.2d 785 (5th Cir. 1968) 10

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list