Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Donnie Lynn SWANSON, Petitioner-Appellee, v. W. J. ESTELLE, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellant, 1975 — 523 F.2d 1250 · caselaw · US
General
Donnie Lynn SWANSON, Petitioner-Appellee, v. W. J. ESTELLE, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellant
523 F.2d 1250·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1975
Before WISDOM, CLARK and RO-NEY, Circuit Judges.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Donnie Lynn SWANSON, Petitioner-Appellee, v. W. J. ESTELLE, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellant.
No. 74-4075.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 24, 1975.
John L. Hill, Atty. Gen., Joe B. Dibrell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., W. Barton Boling, Gilbert Pena, Asst. Attys. Gen., El Paso, Tex., for respondent-appellant.
Larry Miller, Dallas, Tex., for petitioner-appellee.
Before WISDOM, CLARK and RO-NEY, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM:]
PER CURIAM:
The district court’s grant of petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus occurred prior to this Court’s decision in Thomas v. Savage, 513 F.2d 536 (5th Cir. 1975), where we held that the introduction of prior counselless misdemeanor convictions at a subsequent trial could, under appropriate circumstances, constitute harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). Thomas controls the disposition of this case. We have reviewed the record in this case and have concluded that the use of the misdemeanor convictions was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to discharge the writ.
Reversed and Remanded.