Hobson v. Crouse, 7657.
| Decision Date | 09 June 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 7657.,7657. |
| Citation | 332 F.2d 561 |
| Parties | Richard W. HOBSON, Appellant, v. Sherman H. CROUSE, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary, Lansing, Kansas, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Phil S. Hurst, Norman, Okla., for appellant.
Richard H. Seaton, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Kansas (William M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen. of Kansas, on brief), for appellee.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PICKETT and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.
By this application to the District Court for writ of habeas corpus, petitioner seeks to annul a state imposed sentence on the grounds that having been forcibly brought into the state for trial, his conviction violated due process of the Fourteenth Amendment.
This application was filed after similar application had been denied by the Kansas sentencing court, and appeal had failed otherwise than on its merits. The State suggests that other corrective process is available in the form of an original application to the Kansas Supreme Court; that petitioner has not, therefore, exhausted presently available state remedies; and, that he consequently has no standing in the Federal court.
The trial Court discharged the writ on the ground that petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254; and on the further substantive ground that unlawful extradition from the State of North Carolina into the State of Kansas was not such a denial of due process as to deprive the sentencing court of jurisdiction to accept a plea of guilty, citing Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 72 S.Ct. 509, 96 L.Ed. 541.
It may be that petitioner has further state remedies which he may be required to exhaust before coming to the Federal court, but we prefer to place affirmance on the firmly established rule of Frisbie v. Collins, ibid, to the effect that "* * * the power of a court to try a person for crime is not impaired by the fact that he had been brought within the court's jurisdiction by reason of a `forcible abduction' * * *;" and, that "* * * due process of law is satisfied when one present in court is convicted of crime after having been fairly apprised of the charges against him and after a fair trial in accordance with constitutional procedural safeguards."
While conceding the Frisbie rule, appointed counsel ingeniously argues that it has been impliedly overruled by Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, according to which all such "shortcut methods in law enforcement" are forbidden; and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Wilson
...v. Cotten, 471 F.2d 744, 747-49 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 936, 93 S.Ct. 1913, 36 L.Ed.2d 396 (1973); Hobson v. Crouse, 332 F.2d 561, 561 (10th Cir.1964) (per curiam). 10 The Southern District of Texas, the District of the District of Columbia and the Eastern District of Virginia. I......
-
U.S. v. Marzano
...States v. Cotten, 471 F.2d 744, 747-49 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 936, 93 S.Ct. 1913, 36 L.Ed.2d 396; Hobson v. Crouse, 332 F.2d 561 (10th Cir. 1964). None of these cases, however, appear to have involved as outrageous conduct as was involved in IV. A Single Offense or Multiple......
-
U.S. v. Winter, 73--2236
...1371; United States v. Vicars, 5 Cir., 1972, 467 F.2d 452, 455; United States v. Cotten, 9 Cir., 1973, 471 F.2d 744, 748; Hobson v. Crouse, 10 Cir., 1964, 332 F.2d 561. United States v. Herrera, 5 Cir., 1974, 504 F.2d 859, 860. Bound as we are by Herrera, we think that as the Second Circuit......
-
Fournier v. Roed
...in subsequent decisions of the federal circuit courts holding that an illegal arrest does not impair the jurisdiction of the court. In Hobson v. Crouse the court It may be that petitioner has further state remedies which he may be required to exhaust before coming to the Federal court, but ......