Bankey v. Sanford, 2231.
Citation | 74 F. Supp. 756 |
Decision Date | 01 July 1947 |
Docket Number | No. 2231.,2231. |
Parties | BANKEY v. SANFORD, Warden. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
William F. Bankey, in pro per.
J. Ellis Mundy, U. S. Atty., and Harvey H. Tysinger and F. Douglas King, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Atlanta, Ga., for respondent.
Petitioner was sentenced January 3, 1945, in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division, upon his plea of guilty to two indictments charging Sending a Threatening Communication in Interstate Commerce by Telephone, 18 U.S. C.A. § 408d(c), and Escape from Federal Custody, 18 U.S.C.A. § 753h, to serve consecutive terms of two and five years, respectively, aggregating seven years.
By a second application for writ of habeas corpus petitioner seeks discharge from custody upon the grounds that he was not afforded the assistance of counsel, but "pushed through a United States Federal Court hurry scurry, without due process of law," and that sentence was imposed upon him and vacated four hours later and a new sentence imposed on a different charge; and that the proceedings were not reported by a Court Reporter as provided by law. Rule nisi was issued, response made, and traverse interposed.
The record recites, the petition admits, and the traverse reiterates that petitioner was offered and refused the assistance of counsel. "Under appropriate circumstances the Constitution requires that counsel be tendered; it does not require that under all circumstances counsel be forced upon a defendant." Carter v. People of State of Illinois, 329 U.S. 173, 67 S.Ct. 216, 218. "In a criminal prosecution in a federal court, an accused, in the exercise of a free and intelligent choice and with the considered approval of the court * * * may waive his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel." Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 63 S.Ct. 236, 87 L.Ed. 268, 143 A.L.R. 435.
Concerning the contention that petitioner was hurried through the legal proceedings without due process of law, it appears from the record that he voluntarily entered pleas of guilty. There would seem to be no arbitrary time limit within which the Court may act after reception of such a plea. Wood v. United States, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 274, 128 F.2d 265, 273, 141 A.L.R. 1318. Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Kelly
...700; Debardeleben v. United States, 9 Cir., 1962, 307 F.2d 362; Epperson v. Anderson, D. C.Cir., 1963, 326 F.2d 665; Bankey v. Sanford, D.C.Ga., 1947, 74 F.Supp. 756, affirmed, 5 Cir., 165 F.2d 788, cert. denied, 1948, 333 U.S. 847, 68 S.Ct. 649, 92 L.Ed. 1130; United States v. Grabina, 2 C......
-
United States v. Pruitt
...April 24, 1964. Such delay was well within the trial judge's discretion. See Barlow v. United States, 6 F.2d 105 1st Cir. 1925; Bankey v. Sanford, 74 F. Supp. 756 N.D.Ga.1947, affirmed 165 F.2d 788 5th Cir.; Pope v. Huff, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 18, 141 F.2d 727 1944 wherein defendant was tried sep......
-
Lott v. United States
...prompt sentences does not change the law relative to jurisdiction, but was adopted to expedite criminal cases; Bankey v. Sanford, (D.C.N.D.Ga.1947) 74 F.Supp. 756, deciding that after a plea of guilty, it is discretionary with the court as to when sentence should be imposed; U. S. v. Provoo......
- Mandel v. United States, 233