Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

494 F.2d 35

Docket No. 72-1869.

Hilliard v. Beto

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided May 20, 1974.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1974-05-20

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 1977

6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

2 counsel of record

Relies on L. D. Hilliard v. Dr. George J. Beto · Gallegos v. United States · Baker v. Beto

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1974-05-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Harry H. Walsh, Huntsville, Tex., William T. Armstrong, III, Staff Atty., Weldon, Tex., for petitioner-appellant.

¶2Crawford Martin, Atty. Gen., E. L. Hamilton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for respondent-appellee.

¶3Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and GOLDBERG and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM:

¶5Following the panel’s decision in Hil-liard 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.

¶6Consequently, 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.

¶7Vacated and remanded.

/494/f2d/35 · .json · Public domain