143 F.2d 443 (6th Cir. 1944), 9825, Coffin v. Reichard
|Citation:||143 F.2d 443|
|Party Name:||COFFIN v. REICHARD.|
|Case Date:||July 03, 1944|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|
Lyman Glover Coffin, in pro. per.
Before HICKS, HAMILTON, and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.
The motion of appellant to file his appeal herein in forma pauperis is granted.
Appellant, appearing in propria persona, presented to the District Judge a petition for leave to file for writ of habeas corpus, which petition the Judge rejected on the ground that upon its face there was no showing petitioner was entitled to the writ. It appears from the petition that on February 27, 1942, petitioner was indicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, for a violation of Title 18 U.S.C.A.§ 28, and on March 11, 1942, he plead guilty to the indictment and received a sentence which was suspended and the petitioner placed on probation and that on May 10, 1943, the probation was revoked and the suspension of sentence set aside and petitioner was ordered by the court to serve the original sentence in an institution designated by the Attorney General of the United States, and that pursuant to the judgment and sentence of the court, petitioner has since been confined in the United States Public Health Service Hospital at Lexington, Kentucky. It also appears that petitioner was charged in the indictment with forging the name of Dr. George L. Ivey, to a prescription for morphine sulphate. Petitioner alleges that on January 31, 1944, he discovered that the name, Dr. Ivey, was a fiction. Petitioner further alleges that at the time he plead guilty he was physically ill and mentally incapable of discussing intelligently with the attorney appointed by the court, his defense or what plea he should enter and that the narcotic agent obtained a confession from him while petitioner was being held incommunicado and before he had been allowed to see an attorney or any member of his family.
The petition for the writ is not to be scrutinized with technical nicety but should be liberally applied. In our opinion the facts alleged in the petition insofar as they relate to the physical and mental condition of the petitioner at the time he entered his plea and signed his confession are sufficient to require the court to issue a rule on respondent to show cause why a writ should not issue. Johnson v....
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP