James E. Bright v. B. J. Rhay, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary

Good Law
391 F.2d 915·1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7187
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 26, 196821975California422 words

Opinion

Opinion

James E. Bright, presently in Washington penal custody under his conviction on a plea of guilty of grand larceny, appeals from an order of the district court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. No evidentiary hearing was held and no return to Bright’s petition was required or obtained from appellee. The district court dismissed the application. This appeal followed. No brief was filed by appellee.

The main thrust of Bright’s claim is that his plea of guilty of grand larceny was involuntary because it was induced by threats of the prosecutor and police that illegally obtained evidence— contraband and a confession — would be introduced at the trial, and that the prosecutor would not press habitual criminal charges if Bright pleaded guilty. The law is clear that a guilty plea primarily induced by such factors may be attacked by way of habeas corpus. See Johnson v. Wilson, 371 F.2d 911 (9th Cir. 1967); Doran v. Wilson, 369 F.2d 505 (9th Cir. 1966); Cortez v. United States, 337 F.2d 699, 701 (9th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 953 , 85 S.Ct. 1811 , 14 L.Ed.2d 726 (1965); Smiley v. Wilson, 378 F.2d 144 (9th Cir. 1967). The case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing…

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.