TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lynnwell Smith v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

Lynnwell SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dr. George J. BETO, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee

Lynnwell Smith v. Beto, 467 F.2d 1374 (5th Cir. 1972)
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 20, 1972
Docket
No. 71-3190
Judges
Dyer, Morgan, Per Curiam, Simpson
Citations
467 F.2d 13741972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7083

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the denial of Smith’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The state court, at its post-conviction hearings, did not have before it the statement of facts, or transcript, from the original trial. Neither did the district court; nor did it hold an evidentiary hearing. A copy of the trial transcript was obtained during the course of this appeal, and counsel for both parties stipulated that the transcript contains evidence which may be relevant concerning whether involuntary, incriminating statements made by Smith were used for any purpose in his trial. We must therefore remand the case for further proceedings. As the Supreme Court said in Townsend v. Sain, 1963, 372 U.S. 293, 318-319 , 83 S.Ct. 745, 760 , 9 L.Ed.2d 770 :

“A District Court sitting in habeas corpus clearly has the power to compel production of the complete state-court record. Ordinarily such a record — including the transcript of testimony (or if unavailable some adequate substitute, such as a narrative record), the pleadings, court opinions, and other pertinent documents — is indispensable to determining whether the habeas applicant received a full and fair state-court evidentiary hearing resulting in reliable findings.”

If, after reviewing the original trial transcript and all other evidence in the record, the district court determines that the evidence is insufficient to reach a decision in this case in accordance with the Townsend guidelines, then it is directed to conduct a full evidentiary hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

How later courts describe this case

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

1973: 21974: 119732026peak 1973 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. James Burston v. E. B. Caldwell, Warden, Georgia State Prison477 F.2d 996 (5th Cir. 1973)
  2. Early Lowe v. State of Alabama487 F.2d 337 (5th Cir. 1973)
  3. Lehman S. Elliott v. State of Alabama493 F.2d 1348 (5th Cir. 1974)

Most recent

  1. Lehman S. Elliott v. State of Alabama493 F.2d 1348 (5th Cir. 1974)
  2. Early Lowe v. State of Alabama487 F.2d 337 (5th Cir. 1973)
  3. James Burston v. E. B. Caldwell, Warden, Georgia State Prison477 F.2d 996 (5th Cir. 1973)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (1963) 3,785

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