D. H. Litton v. Dr. George J. Beto, Dir., Texas Dep't of Corr., 402 F.2d 474 (5th Cir. 1968). · Go Syfert
Search
D. H. Litton v. Dr. George J. Beto, Dir., Texas Dep't of Corr., 402 F.2d 474 (5th Cir. 1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
D. H. LITTON, Appellant,
v.
Dr. George J. BETO, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Appellee
26288.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Nov 8, 1968.
Published opinion
402 F.2d 474
1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 4939
D. H. Litton, for appellant., Crawford Martin, Atty. Gen., Lonny F. Zwiener, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nola White, First Asst. Atty. Gen., A. J. Carubbi, Jr., Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert C. Flowers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for appellee.
Aldrich, Dyer, Godbold, Per Curiam.
Published
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 67%
Citer courts: Fourth Circuit (1) · Sixth Circuit (1)
PER CURIAM.

This case is again before us upon the appeal of a Texas state prisoner from denial of habeas corpus relief. Upon a previous appeal, we reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. Litton v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1967, 386 F.2d 820.

The District Court held an evidentiary hearing at which the appellant was represented by court appointed counsel and testified. The petition was denied with findings of fact and conclusions of law stated in writing by the court.

The District Court held that the appellant failed to prove that his plea of guilty was coerced or otherwise wrongfully induced, or that his privately-retained counsel rendered ineffective representation.

We have carefully reviewed the record, and we have concluded that the findings are not clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), F.R.Civ.P. We have found no reversible error of law in the proceedings below. Therefore the judgment of the District Court must be, and it is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.