The Appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus asserted two grounds. The first was involuntariness of a confession because Tuggle was required by police officers to give a statement before being allowed to contact counsel or friends. The second was the involuntariness of his subsequent plea of guilty entered by him upon his retained counsel’s advice out of apprehension that he might get the death penalty.

*619 As the papers liberally construed do not adequately assert that the guilty plea was induced by the confession alleged to have been coerced, Carpenter v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1967, 372 F.2d 940 [Feb. 2, 1967]; Murphy v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1967, 372 F.2d 942 [Feb. 2, 1967], the guilty plea eliminates the question as to the voluntariness of the confession. Busby v. Holman, 5 Cir., 1966, 356 F.2d 75. That decision likewise disposes of the second question. Law v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1966, 370 F.2d 369 [Dec. 15, 1966]; White v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1966, 367 F.2d 557 [Oct. 25, 1966].

Affirmed.