Charles Gordon Lindstrom v. Peopel of the State of California

Good Law
364 F.2d 827·1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5206
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 11, 196620422California318 words

Opinion

Opinion

The appellant is a state prisoner incarcerated in a California prison under the control of the appellee Warden. He was convicted in a California Superior Court for the crime of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment on June 9, 1960. He did not appeal from this sentence and subsequently sought post-conviction remedy by petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the California courts and thus exhausted his California remedies for the wrongs which he now attempts to remedy by application for the writ of habeas corpus in the court below. His application was denied in the district court and this appeal follows.

The appellant’s petition for habeas corpus states as follows: “The entire crux of this matter and sole issue to be determined by this Honorable Court is the admission in evidence against petitioner at his trial, the extra judicial statements (confession) of petitioner, which was elicited from petitioner during the course of interrogation, while in police custody; after the investigation had ceased being an exploration into an unsolved crime and had focused upon the petitioner; without petitioner being advised of his constitutional rights to: 1) counsel during interrogation; 2)…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.