Davis v. Johnston, 10754.
| Citation | 144 F.2d 862 |
| Decision Date | 25 August 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 10754.,10754. |
| Parties | DAVIS v. JOHNSTON, Warden. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Paul Davis, in pro. per., for appellant.
Frank J. Hennessy, U. S. Atty., and Joseph Karesh, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before WILBUR, STEPHENS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner was convicted of murder committed during a robbery. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and has been transferred to the United States Penitentiary at Alcatraz, where he is now serving his sentence. The jurisdiction of the federal court over the crime of murder committed in South Dakota is predicated upon the allegation that the crime was committed within an Indian Reservation (the Rosebud Indian Reservation). His petition to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Southern Division, is based upon his allegation that the store in which the robbery and murder occurred was not within the Indian Reservation and, consequently, not within the jurisdiction of the federal courts because, as he alleges, the land upon which the building was located had been allotted and patented to an Indian in severalty and thereafter had been sold by him to a white citizen. He therefore claims that the land was no longer within the reservation. His petition for release on habeas corpus was denied and he appeals.
The first question on this appeal is whether or not such a jurisdictional point can be raised in habeas corpus proceedings after trial and conviction on an indictment alleging the jurisdictional fact that the crime was committed within the reservation. The uniform rule is that where the jurisdiction of the court is in issue in the trial court and is dependent upon facts alleged, the finding of jurisdiction is conclusive on the parties in a collateral attack on the judgment on habeas corpus proceedings or otherwise.
In appellant's petition he states that he did not object to the jurisdiction of the court in the trial of the criminal case for the reason, he now alleges that he was not aware of the fact that the store building in which the crime was committed was not within the reservation. The decision of the court in the criminal case upon the factual question of jurisdiction is equally conclusive whether or not it was raised by the defendant.
The appellee relies upon the case of Hatten v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 99 F.2d 501, wherein one of codefendants of petitioner sought release...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carmen, Application of
...lack of jurisdiction upon the face of the trial court record. Toy Toy v. Hopkins, 212 U.S. 542, 29 S.Ct. 416, 53 L.Ed. 644; Davis v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 144 F.2d 862; Hatten v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 99 F.2d 501; Ex parte Savage, CC., 159 F. 205 see, also, Rodman v. Pothier, 264 U.S. 399, 44 S.Ct......
-
Tooisgah v. United States
...the offense, based upon agreed facts, seems to us manifestly clear. Unlike Hatten v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 99 F.2d 501, and Davis v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 144 F.2d 862, no new or additional facts are sought to be injected into the case, and no adjudicated facts are sought to be impeached. The ques......
-
Beardslee v. United States
...272 (1951); Application of Andy, 49 Wash. 2d 449, 302 P.2d 963 (1956); Hatten v. Hudspeth, 99 F.2d 501 (10 Cir. 1938); Davis v. Johnston, 144 F.2d 862 (9 Cir. 1944), cert. denied 323 U.S. 789, 65 S.Ct. 311, 89 L.Ed. 629. See Smith v. Temple, S.D., 152 N.W.2d 547, 548 (1967). See also the ci......
-
Petition of Carmen
...Congressional and Administrative News, p. 2409. 14 Toy Toy v. Hopkins, 1909, 212 U.S. 542, 29 S.Ct. 416, 53 L.Ed. 644; Davis v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 1944, 144 F.2d 862; Hatten v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 1938, 99 F.2d 501; Walsh v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 1940, 115 F.2d 806; Walsh v. Archer, 9 Cir., 1934,......