Fred Guadalupe Trujillo v. Harry C. Tinsley, Warden of the Colorado State Penitentiary, 333 F.2d 185 (10th Cir. 1964). · Go Syfert
Search
Fred Guadalupe Trujillo v. Harry C. Tinsley, Warden of the Colorado State Penitentiary, 333 F.2d 185 (10th Cir. 1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jay Randall Wolfs v. R. G. Britton, Superintendent, Tucker Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction (ca8, 1975-01-31)
Treatment trajectory · 1964 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1964 1995 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jay Randall Wolfs v. R. G. Britton, Superintendent, Tucker Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction
8th Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
Durham v. Haynes, supra, 368 F.2d at 990; Trujillo v. Tinsley, 333 F.2d 185, 186 (10th Cir. 1964); Wilson v. Nebraska, 316 F.2d 84, 85-86 (8th Cir. 1963).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Richard Lee Kinser v. Bennett J. Cooper, Superintendent Ohio State Reformatory
6th Cir. · 1969 · confidence medium
Bowman v. Alvis, 224 F.2d 275, 276 (C.A.6) cert. den. 350 U.S. 949 , 76 S.Ct. 324 , 100 L.Ed. 827 ; Ellis v. Raines, 294 F.2d 414, 415 (C.A.10) cert. den. 368 U.S. 1000 , 82 S.Ct. 628 , 7 L.Ed.2d 538 ; Chavez v. Dickson, 280 F.2d 727, 736 (C.A.9) cert. den. 364 U.S. 934 , 81 S.Ct. 379 , 5 L.Ed. 2d 366 , rehear. den. 366 U.S. 922 , 81 S. Ct. 1092 , 6 L.Ed.2d 244 ; Trujillo v. Tinsley, 333 F.2d 185, 186 (C.A.10); United States ex rel.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Albert E. Reese v. H. J. Cardwell, Warden, Ohio Penitentiary
6th Cir. · 1969 · confidence medium
It was said in Chavez v. Dickson, 280 F.2d 727, 736 (C.A. 9) cert. den. 364 U.S. 934 , 81 S.Ct. 379 , 5 L.Ed.2d 366 , rehear, den. 366 U.S. 922 , 81 S.Ct. 1092 , 6 L.Ed.2d 244 : “Where there is no question concerning a federally significant external event such as the voluntariness of a confession or the knowing use of perjured testimony, trial court rulings on the admissibility of evidence may not be questioned in a federal habeas corpus proceeding.” In Trujillo v. Tinsley, 333 F.2d 185, 186 (C.A. 10) the court said: “Errors of a state court in a case over which it has jurisdiction are n…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Martis C. Scalf v. John E. Bennett, Warden, Iowa State Penitentiary, Fort Madison, Iowa
8th Cir. · 1969 · confidence medium
Durham v. Haynes, supra, 368 F.2d at 990 ; Trujillo v. Tinsley, 333 F.2d 185, 186 (10th Cir. 1964) ; Wilson v. Nebraska, 316 F.2d 84, 85-86 (8th Cir. 1963).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Fred Guadalupe TRUJILLO, Appellant,
v.
Harry C. TINSLEY, Warden of the Colorado State Penitentiary, Appellee
7704_1.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Jun 22, 1964.
333 F.2d 185
Jap W. Blankenship, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant., John P. Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., (Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., and John E. Bush, Asst. Atty. Gen., were with him on the brief), for appellee.
Phillips, Lewis, Breitenstein.
Cited by 21 opinions  |  Published
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.