Allen v. United States, 10396.
| Decision Date | 09 June 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 10396.,10396. |
| Citation | 162 F.2d 193 |
| Parties | ALLEN v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Robert Toepfer, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.
Appellee not represented.
Before SIMONS, ALLEN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
The appellant was apprehended, having a quantity of morphine in his possession, and was indicted for violation of section 1 of the Harrison Narcotic Law as amended, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 2553, and for violation of the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act, 21 U.S.C.A. § 174. He pleaded guilty on October 19, 1939, was sentenced to pay $1,000 on each count, and to serve five years on the first count and ten years on the second count of the indictment, the sentences to run consecutively. The entire sentence was suspended, and appellant was placed on probation for a period of five years. On November 29, 1943, appellant was charged with violation of his probation, and the District Court revoked the probation order and committed appellant to the custody of the Attorney General for twelve years.
While confined in the Federal Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, appellant filed a petition called "Judgment to set aside or vacate sentence." The District Court treated this as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and dismissed it upon the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus directed to the Warden of the Federal Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas.
Appellant's counsel, appointed by the court, concedes that if the petition be considered an application for a writ of habeas corpus, this judgment is correct. Jones v. Biddle, 8 Cir., 131 F.2d 853, certiorari denied, 318 U.S. 784, 63 S.Ct. 856, 87 L.Ed. 1152. But it is contended that the appellant urges he was insane at the time of entering his plea of guilty, and that his application should be considered as a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The facts as stated in appellant's brief are not controverted nor is the legal proposition advanced opposed by the United States Attorney. In such cases the writ of error coram nobis is the writ to be invoked. Robinson v. Johnston, Warden, 9 Cir., 118 F.2d 998. Its purpose is to bring to the attention of the court some fact unknown to the court, which if known would have resulted in a different judgment. Cf. United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55, 67, 68, 35 S.Ct. 16, 59 L.Ed. 129.
Appellant's contention that he was insane at the time of entering his plea of guilty is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United State v. Morgan
...1330, 1333, 91 L.Ed. 1610, we referred to the slight need for a remedy like coram nobis in view of the modern substitutes. 16 Allen v. United States, 162 F.2d 193; Robinson v. Johnston, 118 F.2d 998, 1001, vacated and remanded for further proceedings 316 U.S. 649, 62 S.Ct. 1301, 86 L.Ed. 17......
-
Johnson v. United States
...attention of the court some fact unknown to the court, which if known would have resulted in a different judgment." Allen v. United States, 162 F.2d 193, 194 (6th Cir. 1947). But the Supreme Court cast doubt on the validity of that limitation, saying, "Such an attitude may reflect the rule ......
-
United States v. Fay
...the County Court in 1923. Cf. United States ex rel. McCann v. Adams, 1943, 320 U.S. 220, 221, 64 S.Ct. 14, 88 L.Ed. 4. Allen v. United States, 6 Cir., 1947, 162 F.2d 193. But cf. Caritativo v. People of State of California, 1958, 357 U.S. 549, 550, 78 S.Ct. 1263, 2 L.Ed.2d 1531; Solesbee v.......
-
United States v. West, Cr. No. 22230.
...the attention of the court some fact unknown to the court, which if known would have resulted in a different judgment. Allen v. United States, 6 Cir., 1947, 162 F.2d 193. Until recent years there was considerable doubt whether this writ was available in the federal courts, as it was general......