Case Name: Albert Russell LAUDERMILK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and W. T. Stone, Superintendent, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1971-03-16
Citations: 439 F.2d 1278
Docket Number: No. 25173
Parties: Albert Russell LAUDERMILK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and W. T. Stone, Superintendent, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 439
Pages: 1278–1285

Head Matter:
Albert Russell LAUDERMILK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and W. T. Stone, Superintendent, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 25173.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 16, 1971.
Ely, Circuit Judge, dissented and filed opinion.
Albert Russell Laudermilk, in pro. per.
Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Mark L. Christiansen, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Diego, Cal., for appellees.
Before DUNIWAY, ELY and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is the latest in a long series of attempts by petitioner Lauder-milk to secure his release from the custody of the California authorities where he is now serving a life sentence following his plea of guilty to a charge of murder in the first degree. The district court has denied his petition for writ of habeas corpus and we affirm.
A detailed recitation of the factual background here is unnecessary. Because of our disposition, it is sufficient to note that Laudermilk's sole contention here is that his plea of guilty is invalid under Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966), since there was no pretrial hearing as to his competency to stand trial or enter a plea of guilty.
This question has been given substantial consideration by other courts before reaching this court. Laudermilk's appeal was first heard by a California District Court of Appeal which, by a 3-1 vote, affirmed his conviction in January, 1967, in an unreported decision.
This case was then affirmed by the Supreme Court of California, sitting en banc, with Justice Peters dissenting. People v. Laudermilk, 67 Cal.2d 272, 61 Cal.Rptr. 644, 431 P.2d 228 (1967). The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. Laudermilk v. California, 393 U.S. 861, 89 S.Ct. 139, 21 L.Ed.2d 128 (1968).
This action followed when Laudermilk filed his petition for habeas corpus in the district court. After a detailed review of the state court record, the district court denied the petition. Neither the petition nor his brief on appeal suggests that there is any further evidence which might lead to a conclusion other than that reached by the state trial court six years ago.
Like the four other courts before us, we have carefully reviewed the record from the state trial court and conclude that the district court's denial of habeas corpus should be affirmed for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court of California. People v. Laudermilk, supra.
There is nothing in our decision of Rhay v. White, 385 F.2d 883 (9th Cir. 1967) which dictates a contrary result. See also Schoeller v. Dunbar, 423 F.2d 1183 (9th Cir. 1970.)
Affirmed.