Sumner

Smith v. Sumner

Good Law
843 F.2d 502
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 24, 198836-3_8California2,040 words

Opinion

Opinion

843 F.2d 502 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. John SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant v. George SUMNER, Attorney General for the State of Nevada, Respondent-Appellee. No. 87-1500. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Feb. 8, 1988. * Decided March 24, 1988. Before EUGENE A. WRIGHT, WALLACE and NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 John Smith attempted to withdraw a guilty plea for second degree murder. He filed this Habeas Corpus petition alleging four grounds of relief: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel violated his sixth amendment rights; (2) his guilty plea was involuntary; (3) Carlson's recanted testimony provides clear evidence of his innocence; and (4) the grand jury indictment on which his conviction was based was invalid because it was based on testimony of petitioner's wife in violation of the spousal privilege. The district court denied the habeas petition. We affirm. A. Standard of Review 3 The district…

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.