TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

James Ray Spann v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida

James Ray SPANN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent-Appellee

Spann v. Wainwright, 431 F.2d 482 (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
October 7, 1970
Docket
No. 482
Judges
Wisdom, Coleman, Simpson
Citations
431 F.2d 4821970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7037

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

James Ray Spann, a Florida state prisoner, appeals from the district court’s denial of habeas corpus relief. We affirm the judgment below.

Appellant was convicted on October 6, 1964 of robbery, and received a ten-year sentence. He was paroled on November 20, 1967. On December 17, 1968, appellant was convicted in Bradenton Municipal Court of drawing a concealed weapon, a misdemeanor, which carries a maximum jail sentence of sixty days and/or a $250.00 fine. Subsequently, on March 10, 1968, appellant’s parole was revoked after a hearing.

Appellant now contends that his parole revocation was based on a Constitutionally infirm conviction since he was denied assistance of counsel at his municipal court trial due to his indigency.

We do not find it necessary to consider the merits of appellant’s contention, since the record before this Court discloses that appellant’s parole was not revoked solely on the basis of the complained-of conviction. The parole revocation order states that appellant violated the conditions of his parole by (1) having been convicted of the misdemeanor; and (2) possessing a weapon, without the consent or knowledge of his supervisor.

Appellant has not challenged the validity of the parole board’s latter finding, which standing alone justifies the revocation of his parole. See Amaya v. Beto, 5th Cir. 1970, 424 F.2d 363 ; United States v. Clanton, 5th Cir. 1969, 419 F.2d 1304 .

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1970: 119702026peak 1970 · 1

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Amaya v. Beto, 424 F.2d 363 (5th Cir. 1970) 22
United States v. Clanton, 419 F.2d 1304 (5th Cir. 1969) 15

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