Ex parte Converse

• Decision Date: 05 January 1891
• Citation: Ex parte Converse, 137 U.S. 624, 11 S.Ct. 191, 34 L.Ed. 796 (1891)
• Parties: Ex parte CONVERSE
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

137 U.S. 624

11 S.Ct. 191

34 L.Ed. 796

Ex parte CONVERSE.

January 5, 1891.

[Statement of Case from pages 624-630 intentionally omitted] J. C. Patterson, for appellant.

B. W. Huston, Atty. Gen. Mich., for respondent.

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

The supremecourt of Michigan held that the information charged the respondent with the crime of embezzlement; that the defendant was called upon to plead to this charge when arraigned; that he pleaded guilty of embezzlement, and undoubtedly understood when he made his plea that he was pleading guilty to the felony charged; that this conclusion was fortified by the private examination required by statute to be made by the judge before sentencing upon a plea of guilty, which was shown to have been had in this case; that the fact that the respondent collected the money as an attorney was immaterial; that, if the act contained all the elements of embezzlement, he was guilty of the crime, and was properly convicted; that an attorney, when he collects money for his client, acts as the agent of his client as well as his attorney, and if after making the collection he appropriates the money to his own use, with the intention of depriving the owner of the same, he is guilty of the crime of embezzlement; that the conviction was warranted by the plea; and that the judgment should therefore be affirmed. As remarked by Judge BROWN it is no defense to an indictment under one statute that a defendant might also be punished under another; and as the highest judicial tribunal of the state of Michigan ruled that the word 'agent' in section 9151 of the statutes of that state applied to attorneys at law, and as the information charged the defendant with embezzlement under that section, and he pleaded guilty to embezzlement as an attorney at law, the affirmance of the conviction necessarily followed. In the view of the statute taken by the court, the plea admitted the truth of the charge. It is not our province to inquire whether the conclusion reached and announced by the supreme court was or was not correct, for we are not passing upon its judgment as a court of error, nor can we consider the contention that the decision was not in harmony with the state constitution and laws.

The single question is whether appellant is held in custody in violation of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, in that the state thereby deprives him...