Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

454 F.2d 1171

Docket No. 71-1410.

Love v. Daniel

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided March 1, 1972.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1972-03-01

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1972

2 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Townsend v. Sain

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1972-03-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Joe H. Little, Jr., Mobile, Ala. (court-appointed), for petitioner-appellant.

¶2MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., of Ala., J. Victor Price, Jr., State of Alabama, Montgomery, Ala., for respondent-ap-pellee.

¶3Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and INGRAHAM and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM:

¶5Appellant, a state prisoner serving a life sentence for first degree murder, here claims that the District Court erred in denying his petition for habeas corpus. We need not — and we do not — go further, however, than the question of whether or not the Court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing. We have determined that under the dictates of Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963), the allegations raised by the petition are such as to necessitate a hearing. The order denying Appellant’s petition for habeas corpus is therefore vacated and the case is remanded for a full hearing on the merits.

¶6Vacated and remanded.

/454/f2d/1171 · .json · Public domain