Jimmy C. Johnson v. Dr. George J. Beto, Dir., Texas Dep't of Corr., 383 F.2d 197 (5th Cir. 1968). · Go Syfert
Search
Jimmy C. Johnson v. Dr. George J. Beto, Dir., Texas Dep't of Corr., 383 F.2d 197 (5th Cir. 1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
30 citation events across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Rufus Johnson v. Steve Puckett, Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary (ca5, 1991-05-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968 1997 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rufus Johnson v. Steve Puckett, Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary
5th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
“In a federal court, habeas corpus can be invoked with respect to indictments only where they are ‘so fatally defective’ that under no circumstances could a valid conviction result from facts provable under the indictment.” Johnson v. Estelle, 704 F.2d 232, 236 (5th Cir.1983) (quoting Johnson v. Beto, 383 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.1967), ce rt. denied, 465 U.S. 1009 , 104 S.Ct. 1006 , 79 L.Ed.2d 237 (1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jackson v. Beyer
D.N.J. · 1990 · confidence medium
Some courts have held that sentencing is a “matter of state criminal procedure and it does not involve such a denial of fundamental fairness as to fall within the purview of federal habeas corpus.” Grecco v. O’Lone, 661 F.Supp. 408, 415 (D.N.J.1987); Cole v. Wyrick, 615 F.2d 1206 , 1208 n. 5 (8th Cir.1980); Johnson v. Beto, 383 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.1968), ce rt. denied, 393 U.S. 868 , 89 S.Ct. 153 , 21 L.Ed.2d 136 (1968).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ervin v. Beyer
D.N.J. · 1989 · confidence medium
Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 81 , 97 S.Ct. 2497, 2503 , 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977); Durham v. Wyrick, 665 F.2d 185, 187 (8th Cir.1981); Johnson v. Beto, 383 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.1967), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 868 , 89 S.Ct. 153 , 21 L.Ed.2d 136 (1968).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Grecco v. O'Lone
D.N.J. · 1987 · confidence medium
Cole v. Wyrick, 615 F.2d 1206 , 1208 n. 5 (8th Cir.1980); Johnson v. Beto, 383 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.1967), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 868 (1968).
cited Cited as authority (rule) William Johnson, Jr. v. W.J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections
5th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
Johnson v. Beto, 383 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.1968).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ca7 1982
7th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
Relief should only be granted where the indictment is "so fatally defective that under no circumstances could a valid conviction result from facts provable under the indictment." Johnson v. Beto, 383 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 868 , 89 S.Ct. 153 , 21 L.Ed.2d 136 (1968).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cramer v. Fahner
7th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
Relief should only be granted where the indictment is “so fatally defective that under no circumstances could a valid conviction result from facts provable under the indictment.” Johnson v. Beto, 383 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 868 , 89 S.Ct. 153 , 21 L.Ed.2d 136 (1968).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Timothy Layne Pierce v. Robert F. Parratt (2×)
8th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
Applying an habitual criminal statute to a defendant enhances his sentence and “[sjentencing ‘is a matter of state criminal procedure, and does not involve such a denial of fundamental fairness as to fall within the purview of federal habeas corpus.’ ” Id. (quoting Johnson v. Beto, 383 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 868 , 89 S.Ct. 153 , 21 L.Ed.2d 136 (1968)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John Hilary Durham v. Donald Wyrick, Warden
8th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
Sentencing “is a matter of state criminal procedure, and does not involve such a denial of fundamental fairness as to fall within the purview of federal habeas corpus.” Johnson v. Beto, 383 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 868 , 89 S.Ct. 153 , 21 L.Ed.2d 136 (1968).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Durham v. Wyrick
8th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
Sentencing “is a matter of state criminal procedure, and does not involve such a denial of fundamental fairness as to fall within the purview of federal habeas corpus.” Johnson v. Beto, 383 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 868 , 89 S.Ct. 153 , 21 L.Ed.2d 136 (1968).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Howard v. Craven
C.D. Cal. · 1969 · confidence medium
Johnson v. Beto, 383 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.1967); Burns v. Crouse, 339 F.2d 883 (10th Cir.1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 925 , 85 S.Ct. 930 , 13 L.Ed.2d 811 (1965); and Gurczynski v. Yeager, 339 F.2d 884, 885 (3rd Cir. 1964).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Martis C. Scalf v. John E. Bennett, Warden, Iowa State Penitentiary, Fort Madison, Iowa
8th Cir. · 1969 · confidence medium
Knewel v. Egan, 268 U.S. 442, 446 , 45 S.Ct. 522 , 69 L.Ed. 1036 (1925) ; Bergemann v. Backer, 157 U.S. 655, 659 , 15 S.Ct. 727 , 39 L.Ed. 845 (1895) ; Johnson v. Beto, 383 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir. 1968) ; Roth v. United States, 295 F.2d 364, 365 (8th Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 1004 , 82 S.Ct. 639 , 7 L.Ed.2d 543 (1962) ; Keto v. United States, 189 F.2d 247, 251 (8th Cir. 1951).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Telepo v. Scheidemantel
D.N.J. · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence medium
“Matters of procedure in sentencing are generally matters of state law and cannot justify the federal intervention of habe-as corpus relief.” Ervin v. Beyer, 716 *305 F.Supp. 163, 165 (D.N.J.1989); see also Johnson v. Beto, 383 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.1967), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 868 , 89 S.Ct. 153 , 21 L.Ed.2d 136 (1968).
Jimmy C. JOHNSON, Appellant,
v.
Dr. George J. BETO, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Appellee
23532_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jan 8, 1968.
383 F.2d 197
Jimmy C. Johnson pro se., Crawford Martin, Atty. Gen., George M. Cowden, First Asst. Atty. Gen., A. J. Carubbi, Jr., Staff Legal Asst. Atty. Gen., R. L. Lattimore, Howard M. Fender, Lonny F. Zwiener, Robert E. Owen, Asst. Attys. Gen., Austin, Tex., for appellee.
Tuttle, Gewin, Ainsworth.
Cited by 30 opinions  |  Published
[*198] PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal, in forma pauperis, from the denial by the District Court for the Southern District of Texas without an evidentiary hearing of appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Appellant is attacking his separate convictions on two charges of robbery with firearms. In both cases he was found guilty after trials before a jury on pleas of not guilty. He was represented by counsel at the trials. Both convictions were affirmed on appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Johnson v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 173, 339 S.W.2d 214 (1960); Johnson v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 349, 341 S.W.2d 170 (1960).

Appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court was denied without written order. The sentences in the two cases were set at forty and fifty years respectively, the second sentence to run consecutively to the first. In exchange for a motion to dismiss this appeal, filed by appellant’s appointed counsel but opposed by appellant himself, the trial court resentenced appellant to make the two sentences run concurrently. This court, however, denied the motion to dismiss this appeal.

Since the writ of habeas corpus is only available in situations where discharge from custody will result from the granting of relief, if the second conviction of appellant resulting in the longer sentence is not subject to attack, it would be premature to inquire into the first conviction McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131, 55 S.Ct. 24, 79 L.Ed. 238 (1934); Brown v. Beto, 377 F.2d 950 (5 Cir. 1967); Wilson v. Gray, 345 F.2d 282 (9 Cir. 1965); Wood v. Crouse, 327 F.2d 81 (10 Cir. 1964). Limiting our inquiry to the second conviction, appellant urges (1) that a pistol obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure was admitted into evidence; (2) that the sentence was improperly cumulated with his prior sentence; (3) that he was illegally detained and interrogated by the police; (4) that the trial court was prejudiced; (5) that certain police officers’ testimony should not have been admitted; and (6) that the indictment was void.

No substantial question is presented by appellant’s first allegation. This conviction became final on March 14, 1961. The Supreme Court’s decision in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) is not applicable to cases decided prior to June 19, 1961. Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965). Appellant’s allegation that he was illegally detained and interrogated is similarly without foundation as Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964) is not to be given retroactive effect. Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966). In any event, appellant has not alleged that a confession or damaging admission was obtained from him during such detention.

Appellant’s allegation regarding improper cumulation of sentences is without merit. The sentences are now to run concurrently. Additionally, this is a matter of state criminal procedure, and does not involve such a denial of fundamental fairness as to fall within the purview of federal habeas corpus. Wooten v. Bomar, 267 F.2d 900 (6 Cir. 1959). Appellant’s allegation of trial court prejudice is patently frivolous, and no facts were presented which could lend constitutional stature to petitioner’s complaint that “police officers’ testimony should not have been permitted.” Finally, habeas corpus can only be invoked with respect to indictments which are so fatally defective that under no circumstances could a valid conviction result from facts provable under the indictment. Morales v. Wilkenson, 283 F.2d 252 (5 Cir. 1960). Appellant’s allegation that the indictment is void totally fails to establish any ground for relief.

Finding appellant’s contentions to be utterly without merit, the judgment is affirmed.