Larry Jones, Petitioner-appellant, v. State of Georgia et al., Respondents-appellees, 475 F.2d 1141 (5th Cir. 1973)

 Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - 475 F.2d 1141 (5th Cir. 1973) April 27, 1973

James C. Bonner, Decatur, Ga., (Court-appointed), for petitioner-appellant.

Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harold N. Hill, Jr., Courtney Wilder Stanton, David L. G. King, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, Ga., for respondents-appellees.

Before BELL, GODBOLD and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Court-appointed counsel for appellant, a Georgia state prisoner habeas applicant, has asserted one principal error on this appeal. In addition, deeming it to be his duty in a habeas case, he has conscientiously catalogued other possible errors for the consideration of the court.

The principal assignment of error, that the state trial court erred in the charge to the jury on voluntary manslaughter (called a due process violation), is, in the context of the total charge, without merit. The additional assignments of error are also without merit.1 

Affirmed.

 *

Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409

 1

The additional assignments of error are the following:

 1

Appellant's conviction for voluntary manslaughter on an indictment charging murder was a violation of due process

 2

Appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial

 3

Appellant was arrested in violation of the Fourth Amendment

 4

Appellant's conviction was obtained by the use of an involuntary confession

 5

Appellant was denied assistance of counsel at the commitment hearing

 6

Appellant was denied the right to present witnesses in his behalf because his trial counsel did not call certain witnesses who attended trial under subpoena

 7

Appellant's conviction was obtained by the use of improperly suggestive identification procedures

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.