Verlon Musgrove v. Frank A. Eyman, Superintendent, Arizona State Penitentiary

Good Law
435 F.2d 1235·1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12542
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 5, 197123953California1,789 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kilkenny, J.

Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted in the Arizona state court of the crime of buying and receiving stolen property of a value in excess of $50.00. After exhausting his remedies in the state courts, he filed this habeas corpus proceeding in the district court. After a full evidentiary hearing, his petition was denied. He appeals. We affirm.

Factual Background

The following is a fair summary of the state’s evidence and the findings of the district court, as supported by the record. In the early morning of September 5, 1964, Tucson city police received a report of a liquor store burglary. Within fifteen or twenty minutes after receiving the report, police apprehended Ronald Slay and another suspect a short distance from the burglarized store, but found no liquor in their possession. The officer who subsequently arrested appellant arrived approximately an hour and a half after Slay and his companion had been taken into custody. During a briefing, the officer learned that Slay had been involved in a different liquor store burglary earlier in the evening and that he had been specifically identified as a participant in the second burglary. Accordingly, the officer commenced…

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.