From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hopkins v. Wainwright

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Apr 6, 1972
458 F.2d 393 (5th Cir. 1972)

Opinion

No. 71-3104. Summary Calendar.

Rule 18, 5th Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises. Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part. I.

April 6, 1972.

Roosevelt Hopkins, pro se.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. of Fla., Tallahassee, Fla., B. S. Richard, Joseph R. DeLucca, Asst. Attys. Gen., Miami, Fla., for respondent-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before THORNBERRY, COLEMAN and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.



Hopkins appeals from an order of the district court denying his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

Appellant was convicted upon trial by jury in the Dade County, Florida Criminal Court of Record of the offenses of robbery and attempted murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. Hopkins v. State, Fla.App., 192 So.2d 8 (1966), cert. denied, Fla., 200 So.2d 812 (1967). After exhausting state remedies, appellant filed his habeas petition in the court below alleging that (1) the Government knowingly used perjured testimony concerning identification; (2) he was entitled to have counsel present at his lineup; (3) identification testimony of the victim was insufficient; and (4) the trial court failed to direct an acquittal.

Rather than alleging facts in support of his assertions of perjury and insufficient identification, appellant set forth excerpts of trial testimony, all of which refer to his being identified by eyewitnesses at the time of the offense and at the lineup. These excerpts are relevant only to the sufficiency of the evidence from which the jury determined appellant's guilt. Sufficiency of evidence is not grounds for federal habeas corpus relief. Pleas v. Wainwright, 5th Cir. 1971, 441 F.2d 56; Summerville v. Cook, 5th Cir. 1971, 438 F.2d 1196; Fulford v. Dutton, 5th Cir. 1967, 380 F.2d 16. As to the allegation that he was denied counsel at the lineup, appellant was tried and convicted before the Supreme Court decided United States v. Wade, 1967, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149. Wade has been held not to be retroactively applied. Stovall v. Denno, 1967, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199; Harris v. Beto, 5th Cir. 1971, 438 F.2d 116. Finally, the contention that the court erred in not directing an acquittal is patently without merit.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Hopkins v. Wainwright

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Apr 6, 1972
458 F.2d 393 (5th Cir. 1972)
Case details for

Hopkins v. Wainwright

Case Details

Full title:ROOSEVELT HOPKINS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Apr 6, 1972

Citations

458 F.2d 393 (5th Cir. 1972)

Citing Cases

Rodriguez v. United States

As the district court found, such conflicts raised factual questions which were for the jury to determine.…

Pitts v. Hopper

The respondent in this case contends that the testimony of Summerville was corroborated independently of…