From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

HILLIARD v. BETO

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
May 20, 1974
494 F.2d 35 (5th Cir. 1974)

Opinion

No. 72-1869.

May 20, 1974.

Harry H. Walsh, Huntsville, Tex., William T. Armstrong, III, Staff Atty., Weldon, Tex., for petitioner-appellant.

Crawford Martin, Atty. Gen., E. L. Hamilton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for respondent-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and GOLDBERG and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.


Following the panel's decision in Hilliard v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1972, 465 F.2d 829 the Court on its own motion took the case en banc. Upon further consideration the full Court remanded the case to the panel since even the most conservative reading of the factual allegations of petitioner's § 2254 complaint shows that he is claiming to be the victim of a broken plea bargain, but there has been no factual hearing to determine whether this claim is supported. Indeed there was not even so much as a show cause order which would have produced the Texas state court record including the proceedings on receipt and acceptance of the plea and sentencing.

Consequently, as in Gallegos v. United States, 5 Cir., 1973, 476 F.2d 1281 (en banc) withdrawing the panel opinion, Gallegos v. United States, 5 Cir., 1972, 466 F.2d 740 we vacate our prior opinion ( 465 F.2d 829) and remand to the District Court for an appropriate factual hearing and determination of the plea bargain claim and any matters related to it in the plea and sentencing hearings in the state court.

Vacated and remanded.


Summaries of

HILLIARD v. BETO

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
May 20, 1974
494 F.2d 35 (5th Cir. 1974)
Case details for

HILLIARD v. BETO

Case Details

Full title:L. D. HILLIARD, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. DR. GEORGE J. BETO…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: May 20, 1974

Citations

494 F.2d 35 (5th Cir. 1974)

Citing Cases

United States v. Roberts

Defendant's responses to judicial questioning at the Rule 11 hearing are notoriously unreliable, see…

People v. Selikoff

Defendant was told plainly and bluntly that if the presentence report justified a prison sentence, then one…