Caldwell v. Maxwell
| Decision Date | 24 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 16450.,16450. |
| Citation | 357 F.2d 646 |
| Parties | Clarence E. CALDWELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. E. L. MAXWELL, Warden, Ohio State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Clarence E. Caldwell, in pro. per.
William B. Saxbe, Atty. Gen., Leo J. Conway, Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbus, Ohio, on the brief, for appellee.
Before O'SULLIVAN and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges, and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge.
This cause is before the Court on appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denying the application of the appellant, Clarence E. Caldwell, for a writ of habeas corpus.
It appears from the record that the appellant, Clarence E. Caldwell, was indicted in Franklin County, Ohio, on October 16, 1960, on two counts, charging him in the first count with possession of heroin and in the second count with possession of a hypodermic needle adapted for the purpose of administering habit-forming drugs. The appellant was represented by counsel of his own choosing and was arraigned in the Common Pleas Court of Franklin County, Ohio. The second count of the indictment was nolled by the court and the appellant entered a plea of guilty to the first count on November 14, 1960. Upon the plea of guilty, the presiding judge placed the appellant on probation for a period of five years.
This order of probation was revoked on February 23, 1962, and the appellant was sentenced to the Ohio Penitentiary for an indeterminate sentence. On May 20, 1964, the Supreme Court of Ohio, in Caldwell v. Haskins, Supt., London Correctional Institution, 176 Ohio St. 261, 199 N.E.2d 116, denied a petition of appellant for a writ of habeas corpus. The District Court, finding that only legal issues were presented by appellant's application, denied his application for a writ of habeas corpus on February 8, 1965.
The application of the appellant, before the District Court and now before us on this appeal, contains only a general allegation that the appellant was restrained of his liberty in violation of the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. More specific statements are made in appellant's brief to the effect that his rights were violated as a result of an illegal arrest, and an illegal search,1 that he was forced to make incriminating statements by the police, and that he was held seventy-two hours before he was taken before a magistrate. The appellant further claims in his brief...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henderson v. Tollett
...(6th Cir. 1970); Reed v. Henderson, 385 F.2d 995 (6th Cir. 1967); Crockett v. Haskins, 372 F.2d 475 (6th Cir. 1966); Caldwell v. Maxwell, 357 F.2d 646 (6th Cir. 1966). But while there is merit to the general rule that a guilty plea in a state court waives a defendant\'s right to raise in th......
-
Austin v. Perini, 20312.
...all non-jurisdictional defects. Reed v. Henderson, 385 F.2d 995 (6th Cir.); Crockett v. Haskins, 372 F.2d 475 (6th Cir.); Caldwell v. Maxwell, 357 F.2d 646 (6th Cir.); United States v. Zavada, 291 F.2d 189 (6th In McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763, the Suprem......