Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

341 F.2d 107

Docket No. 7902.

Gallegos v. Cox

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1965-01-19

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently September 1967

7 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““State prisoner, who was serving sentence imposed for unlawful sale of marihuana, brought habeas corpus proceeding. The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, H. Yearle Payne, J., entered judgment dismissing the petition, and prisoner appealed. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court properly dismissed the petition alleging that sentence was invalid because prisoner had not been furnished counsel at preliminary hearing and later on arraignment at which he pleaded not guilty to indictment, where prisoner did not testify at the preliminary hearing, and no contention was made that any incriminating statements were made then or on his arraignment, since no prejudice was shown.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Gasque v. State

Relies on Lovell Manufacturing Co. v. Etten · Latham v. Crouse · Utah v. Sullivan

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1965-01-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Robert A. Backus, of Schmidt & Van Cise, Denver, Colo., for appellant.

L. D. Harris, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for State of New Mexico (Earl E. Hartley, Atty. Gen., of State of New Mexico, on the brief), for appellee.

Before PICKETT, LEWIS and SETH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

The appellant Gallegos is confined in the New Mexico State Penitentiary pursuant to a sentence imposed for the unlawful sale of marihuana. After exhausting his remedies in state court, he brought this habeas corpus proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, alleging that the sentence is invalid because he had not been furnished counsel at a preliminary hearing and later upon arraignment in the District Court of McKinley County, New Mexico, where he pleaded not guilty to an indictment. At his trial in state court the appellant was represented by counsel of his own selection.

¶2

After a hearing in this habeas corpus proceeding, the trial court dismissed the petition, and properly so. Appellant did not testify at the preliminary hearing in state court, and no contention is made that any incriminating statements were made then or upon his arraignment. Under these circumstances no prejudice is shown. Downing v. New Mexico State Supreme Court, 10 Cir., 339 F.2d 435; Lathan v. Crouse, 10 Cir., 320 F.2d 120; Utah v. Sullivan, 10 Cir., 227 F.2d 511, certiorari denied, sub nom. Braasch v. Utah, 350 U.S. 973, 76 S.Ct. 449, 100 L. Ed. 844.

¶3

Affirmed.

/341/f2d/107 · .json · Public domain