Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

435 F.2d 554

Docket No. 25867.

Molina v. Craven

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1971-01-04

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently February 1971

2 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Boykin v. Alabama · Bruton v. United States · Commodore William Moss v. Walter E. Craven, Warden

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1971-01-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Robert F. Peckham, Judge.

Gilbert Molina, in pro. per.

Thomas C. Lynch, Cal. Atty. Gen., Derald E. Granberg, Joyce F. Nedde, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Before CHAMBERS, HAMLEY and MERRILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

The decision of the district court denying habeas corpus relief is affirmed.

¶2

Molina was convicted in California of the state crime of murder of a fellow prisoner.

¶3

On his point that his co-defendant should not have been permitted to testify (the testimony hurt Molina), there was ample opportunity for cross-examination, which was done quite thoroughly. In our view, reliance here on Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476, on the facts of this case, is misplaced.

¶4

Contentions that Molina was not represented by competent counselor are frivolous.

¶5

The state failure to hold a pre-hearing reception on admissions of Molina and of his co-defendant is attacked. No such hearing was requested. This may have been trial strategy of able counsel.

/435/f2d/554 · .json · Public domain