Ex parte Wilson
| Decision Date | 10 October 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 130.,130. |
| Citation | 35 F.2d 537 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
| Parties | Ex parte WILSON. |
William H. Wylie, of San Diego, Cal. (H. P. L. Beck, of San Diego, Cal., on the brief), for petitioner.
The United States Attorney and Gwyn S. Redwine, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Los Angeles, Cal.
This is a proceeding by habeas corpus in which the petitioner asks to be discharged from an order of deportation issued by the Secretary of Labor, directing that petitioner be deported to Great Britain, the country of his allegiance.
The warrant of deportation charges that the petitioner is in the United States in violation of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, § 19 (8 USCA § 155), in that:
(a) He has been convicted of a felony or other crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, prior to entry into the United States, to wit, petty larceny; and that:
(b) Subsequent to May 1, 1917, he has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of one year or more because of conviction in this country of a crime involving moral turpitude, committed within five years after entry, to wit, grand larceny.
While the warrant does not include the charge, the evidence shows that the alien at the time of his last entry entered without inspection, and that he was at that time a person likely to become a public charge.
Briefs have been submitted for the petitioner by Mr. William H. Wylie and Mr. H. P. L. Beck, attorneys of San Diego, and oral argument by Mr. Wylie. The government was represented by the United States Attorney and briefs submitted by Mr. Gwyn S. Redwine, Assistant United States Attorney and oral argument had by Mr. Redwine.
It appears that the petitioner entered the United States more than twenty years ago, and in 1908 entered a plea of guilty in some court in the state of Minnesota to the charge of petty larceny. It further appears that some time in January, 1928, petitioner departed this country for the Republic of Mexico and re-entered the United States through the port of San Ysidro, Cal., some time during the month of January, 1928. It further appears that subsequent to this last entry of the petitioner he entered a plea of guilty in the superior court of San Diego county, Cal., to the crime of grand theft, and that, after many steps of one kind and another were taken, was, on the 19th day of November, 1928, sentenced to one year in the county jail of San Diego county, Cal.
Counsel for petitioner argue, first, that conviction of the petitioner on the charge of petty larceny is not a crime involving moral turpitude, and, second, that, while the court at San Diego imposed a sentence of one year upon the petitioner on the charge of grand theft, after he had served 90 days of that sentence, he was given probation under the provisions of the statutes of California.
To the point that petty larceny does not involve moral turpitude, counsel for petitioner cite Ex parte Edmead (D. C.) 27 F.(2d) 438. That was a proceeding on habeas corpus on deportation precisely as is the case at bar. The District Court granted the writ and discharged the petitioner from custody. However, the government took an appeal from that ruling to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the District Court and ordered the case remanded to that court with direction to dismiss the petition and discharge the writ. Tillinghast v. Edmead, 31 F.(2d) 81, 84. In its opinion...
To continue reading
Request your trial