Helms v. Humphrey
Citation | 63 F. Supp. 4 |
Decision Date | 13 November 1945 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 977. |
Parties | HELMS v. HUMPHREY, Warden. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
No attorney for petitioner.
Victor E. Anderson, U. S. Atty., and James J. Giblin, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of St. Paul, Minn., for respondent.
The petitioner does not set forth any facts to show that he has been denied any federal constitutional rights, due process or otherwise.
Petitioner claims that he became temporarily insane on the night of November 8, 1944, at Waco, Texas, and thereupon transported a stolen automobile to Omaha, Nebraska, and that he was insane at the time of his trial at Omaha, presumably when he pleaded guilty to this Dyer Act violation, Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 408, which carries a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment.
Petitioner goes on to say:
These facts do not warrant the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The sentence of three years was within the limits of the Dyer Act.
Petitioner was represented by counsel when the plea of guilty was entered and when sentence was pronounced. The Court had jurisdiction of the petitioner and of the offense and the sentence was a lawful one. A plea of not guilty and defense of insanity could have been interposed but petitioner, under advice of counsel, waived the defense of insanity and entered a plea of guilty.
It is not a ground for habeas corpus that counsel made a mistake or was negligent or gave bad advice to his client. Petitioner was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Handy
...to warrant habeas corpus. Ex parte Smith, D.C. M.D.Pa., 72 F.Supp. 935; Morton v. Welch, 4 Cir., 162 F.2d 840-842; Helms v. Humphrey, D.C.D.Minn., 63 F.Supp. 4; Ex parte Haumesch, 9 Cir., 82 F.2d 558; Farrell v. Lanagan, 1 Cir., 166 F.2d 845-847; Jones v. Dowd, 7 Cir., 128 F.2d 331, 332; Sw......
-
Adams v. Hiatt
...72 F. Supp. 935, 939 (and cases there cited); Setser v. Welch, 4 Cir., 159 F.2d 703; Maye v. Pescor, 8 Cir., 162 F.2d 641; Helms v. Humphrey, D.C.Minn., 63 F. Supp. 4; Pierce v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 126 F.2d 337; United States ex rel. Gash v. Nierstheimer, D.C.Ill., 74 F. Supp. 992, 8 Morton ......
-
Shaw v. Utecht
...F.2d 667, certiorari denied, 325 U.S. 889, 65 S.Ct. 1576, 89 L.Ed. 2002; Jones v. Huff, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 254, 152 F.2d 14. In Helms v. Humphrey, 63 F.Supp. 4, 5, the federal district court for Minnesota held: 'It is not a ground for habeas corpus that counsel made a mistake or was negligent ......
-
United States v. Wight
...89 L.Ed. 2002. Strong v. Huff, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 89, 148 F.2d 692, cert. den. 326 U. S. 768, 66 S.Ct. 165, 90 L. Ed. 463; Helms v. Humphrey, D.C., 63 F. Supp. 4, 5. A lack of effective assistance of counsel must be of such a kind as to shock the conscience of the Court and make the proceeding......