Rose v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 24 January 1900 |
| Docket Number | 118. |
| Citation | 99 F. 948 |
| Parties | ROSE ex rel. CARTER v. ROBERTS. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Abram J. Rose, for plaintiff in error.
Henry L. Burnett, for defendant in error.
Before WALLACE and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.
This appeal presents for review an order of the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of New York dismissing a writ of habeas corpus. The writ was obtained in behalf of Oberlin M. Carter on a petition alleging that the relator was unlawfully imprisoned pursuant to a sentence of a court-martial.
It appears by the record that the relator as a captain in the corps of engineers, United States army, was convicted by the court-martial of four different offenses committed by him while in the military service of the United States, viz. conspiring to defraud the United States, in violation of the sixtieth article of war; conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, in violation of the sixty-first article of war and embezzlement, as defined in section 5488, Rev.St.U.S., in violation of the sixty-second article of war. He was thereupon sentenced by the court-martial to suffer a fine of $5,000, to be imprisoned at hard labor for five years, to be dismissed from the service of the United States, and to the publication of his crime and punishment as prescribed by statute upon a dismissal for fraud. The findings and sentence of the court-martial were approved by the secretary of war and confirmed by the president, and before the institution of the proceedings under review the relator had paid the fine imposed by the sentence, and had been dismissed from the service of the United States.
It is not the office of a writ of habeas corpus to perform the functions of a writ of error in reviewing the judgment of a court-martial. Courts-martial are tribunals created by congress in pursuance of the power conferred by the constitution, and have as plenary jurisdiction of offenses committed to them by the law military as do the circuit and district courts of the United States in the exercise of their statutory powers over other offenses. The question of jurisdiction may be reached by such a writ, as it may be when the judgment of any tribunal is attacked; but the range and scope of the inquiry is controlled by the same rules and limitations in either case. There must be jurisdiction to hear and determine, and to render the particular judgment or sentence imposed; but, if this exists, however erroneous the proceedings may be, they cannot be reviewed collaterally, or redressed by habeas corpus. These principles have been repeatedly declared by the authorities. In re Davison (C.C.) 21 F. 618; Ex parte Reed, 100 U.S. 13, 25 L.Ed 538; In re Coy, 127 U.S. 731, 8 Sup.Ct. 1263, 32 L.Ed. 274; Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 4 Sup.Ct. 152 28 L.Ed. 274; U.S. v. Pridgeon, 153 U.S. 59, 14 Sup.Ct. 746, 38 L.Ed. 631.
It is not contended for the appellant that the court-martial did not have jurisdiction of the person of the accused and of the offenses of which he was convicted, but it is insisted that the court transcended its power in the imposition of punishment. More specifically, the contention for the appellant is that, while it was within the competency of the court-martial to try and punish the relator for the offenses in violation of the sixtieth article of war of which he was convicted, the court exceeded its authority when it punished him by fine and imprisonment instead of fine or imprisonment; and that the conviction and sentence for the offense alleged to be in violation of the sixty-second article of war were void, because the facts charged did not constitute an offense against that article.
If the sentence was in excess of the authority conferred upon the court by the articles of war enacted by congress, it was to that extent void, as the court would have gone beyond its jurisdiction in imposing punishment. On the other hand, if the authority of the court extended to the punishment of the relator by fine and imprisonment upon his conviction of the two offenses in violation of the sixtieth article of war, the sentence defeats any remedy by the writ of habeas corpus, as that remedy reaches only cases of unlawful imprisonment, and it matters not, for present purposes, whether the authority of the court extended to his conviction and sentence for any other offense. There being no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Nevitt
......838; Ex parte Reed, 100. U.S. 13 23, 25 L.Ed. 538; Ex parte. [117 F. 450] . Coy, 127 U.S. 731, 8 Sup.Ct. 1263, 32 L.Ed. 274; Rose v. Roberts, 99 F. 948, 40 C.C.A 199. In view of this. universal rule, the facts and the law which condition the. merits of the controversy over ......
-
McDonald v. Lee, 15017.
...United States v. Keith, 4 C.M.R. 34, 40. See also Carter v. McClaughry, 183 U.S. 365, 393, 22 S.Ct. 181, 46 L.Ed. 236; Rose v. Roberts, 2 Cir., 99 F. 948, 950; Mosher v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 123 F.2d 401, 402; Winthrop, Military Law & Precedents, 1920 reprint, p. If Article 57(b) of the Unifo......
-
Wong Sun v. United States
...might have been decided, and the question of res judicata was not raised or presented, nor was there room therefor. In Rose v. Roberts (C.C.A. 2) 99 F. 948, 40 C.C.A. 199, an order of the Circuit Court dismissing the writ of corpus had been affirmed upon the holding that the judgment of a c......
-
State ex rel. Poole v. Nuchols
......Smith v. Whitney, 116 U.S. 167, 6 S.Ct. 570, 29 L.Ed. 601;. Carter v. McClaughry, 183 U.S. 365, 22 S.Ct. 181, 46. L.Ed. 236; Rose v. Roberts, 99 F. 948, 40 C.C.A. 199; United States v. Maney (C. C.) 61 F. 140. . . While I. dissent, therefore, from the ......