Horton v. Bomar, 15785.

Citation335 F.2d 583
Decision Date21 August 1964
Docket NumberNo. 15785.,15785.
PartiesAcie HORTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lynn BOMAR, Warden, Tennessee State Penitentiary, Nashville, Tennessee, Respondent-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

J. Allen Gehrig, Cincinnati, Ohio, court appointed, for appellant.

George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen., of Tennessee, Henry C. Foutch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, Tenn., for appellee.

Before CECIL and O'SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from an order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee denying the appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The appellant was convicted in the Criminal Court of Shelby County at Memphis, Tennessee, of the crime of rape. He was sentenced to seventy-five years imprisonment in the State penitentiary.

The appellant now wants out. He probably does not understand that the granting of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus would not be an open gate to freedom. It only means a retrial on the original indictment.

The appellant presented three points in his brief to the District Court, only two of which are now argued before us by court appointed counsel. The appellant claimed that the statute under which he was convicted was void because of the mal-apportionment of the Tennessee Legislature at the time of its enactment. This claim is without merit. Dawson v. Bomar, 322 F.2d 445 (CA 6), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 933, 84 S.Ct. 705, 11 L.Ed.2d 653.

One of the claims made on behalf of the appellant is that he was denied the right by the prosecuting authorities to be examined by a medical examiner to test whether or not he committed the crime of rape. Counsel for appellant interprets this phraseology to mean physical capacity to commit rape. Physical incapacity to commit the crime is a matter of defense. We find no reference to any testimony of the appellant that he lacked physical capacity to commit the crime with which he was charged. Counsel seeks to supply this lack of testimony by saying that the appellant's request to the court for medical examination was, in effect, a denial of physical capacity. This inference of incapacity did not put the trial judge under any obligation to anticipate the appellant's defense and to appoint a medical examiner to try to prove it for him. The appellant was represented at the trial by counsel of his own choosing. It was incumbent on counsel and his client to prepare and furnish the defense and not on the court or prosecuting authorities. The statement of the District Judge is apropos: "It nowhere appears, nor has any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Schweitzer v. Williams, Case No. 3:08 CV 2250.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • February 19, 2010
    ...528 U.S. 152, 160, 120 S.Ct. 684, 145 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000); accord Hollin v. Sowders, 710 F.2d 264-267 (6th Cir.1983); Horton v. Bomar, 335 F.2d 583, 584 (6th Cir.1964). Even more to the point, a defendant does not have the right to appeal the length of his sentence. See United States v. Nati......
  • Van Le v. Beightler
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • December 14, 2009
    ...528 U.S. 152, 160, 120 S.Ct. 684, 145 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000); accord Hollin v. Sowders, 710 F.2d 264-267 (6th Cir.1983); Horton v. Bomar, 335 F.2d 583, 584 (6th Cir.1964). Even more to the point, a defendant does not have the right to appeal the length of his See United States v. Nation, 352 F.......
  • Donnell v. Swenson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • October 4, 1966
    ...case is one of the two cases relied on by respondent in support of his suggestion for modification. Neither that case nor Horton v. Bomar, 6 Cir. 1964, 335 F.2d 583, the other case relied upon by respondent, is in point because the factual situation presented in Pate v. Holman was still und......
  • Wilkins v. Shirleson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • September 6, 2011
    ...v. Terhune, 441 F.3d 688, 698-99 n.11 (9th Cir. 2006); Julian v. Bartley, 495 F.3d 487, 499-500 (7th Cir. 2007); Horton v. Bomar, 335 F.2d 583, 584 (6th Cir. 1964). Were the Court to find, hypothetically, that the plea agreement in this matter was invalid for some reason, Petitioner would n......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT