Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Frank Ervin Altizer, Jr. v. E. L. Paderick, Superintendent Virginia State Penitentiary and Andrew P. Miller, Attorney General of Virginia, 76-1500 (1976)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 76-1500 Visitors: 19
Filed: Nov. 12, 1976
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 542 F.2d 1250 Frank Ervin ALTIZER, Jr., Appellant, v. E. L. PADERICK, Superintendent Virginia State Penitentiary and Andrew P. MILLER, Attorney General of Virginia, Appellees. No. 76-1500. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Argued Oct. 8, 1976. Decided Nov. 12, 1976. Thomas F. Coates, III, Richmond, Va. (Coates & Comess, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellant. James E. Kulp, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Virginia, Richmond, Va. (Andrew P. Miller, Atty. Gen. of Virginia, Richmond, Va., on bri
More

542 F.2d 1250

Frank Ervin ALTIZER, Jr., Appellant,
v.
E. L. PADERICK, Superintendent Virginia State Penitentiary
and Andrew P. MILLER, Attorney General of
Virginia, Appellees.

No. 76-1500.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Argued Oct. 8, 1976.
Decided Nov. 12, 1976.

Thomas F. Coates, III, Richmond, Va. (Coates & Comess, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellant.

James E. Kulp, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Virginia, Richmond, Va. (Andrew P. Miller, Atty. Gen. of Virginia, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellees.

Before BUTZNER, Circuit Judge, FIELD, Senior Circuit Judge, and HALL, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Frank Ervin Altizer, Jr., a Virginia prisoner under convictions for abduction, sodomy and rape, filed a petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In his petition Altizer charged that his rights had been violated by (1) prejudicial pretrial publicity; (2) denial of a fair and impartial jury; (3) suggestive pretrial photographic identification; and (4) introduction of evidence at his trial which was seized pursuant to an unconstitutional search.

2

The district judge, after a careful review of the state court record, concluded that Altizer was not entitled to relief. Upon consideration of the record, briefs and oral arguments, we agree with the conclusion of the district judge and affirm upon his opinion. Altizer v. Paderick, 399 F. Supp. 918 (E.D.Va.1975).

3

AFFIRMED.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer