Klink v. Looney, 5997.
| Decision Date | 28 November 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 5997.,5997. |
| Citation | 262 F.2d 119 |
| Parties | Lowry Newton KLINK, Appellant, v. C. H. LOONEY, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Charles E. Wright, Denver, Colo., for appellant.
E. Edward Johnson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan. (Wilbur G. Leonard, U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, MURRAH and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.
Klink is confined in the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, on a sentence imposed for violation of the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312.
Prior to February 25, 1958, Klink forwarded to the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit a document entitled "Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus," addressed to the Presiding Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. On that date Chief Judge Bratton entered an order transferring the cause for hearing and determination by the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241. On March 14, 1958, the United States District Court for the District of Kansas1 entered an order denying Klink's application to prosecute the action without prepayment of costs. On April 24, 1958, Klink lodged with the Clerk of the District Court a motion to appeal in forma pauperis from the last-mentioned order. As grounds for his application Klink alleged that the order of the District Court denying him the right to prosecute his application for the writ in forma pauperis violated the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, guaranteeing him the right of trial by jury, and Section 9, Clause 2 of Article 1 of the United States Constitution, which provides that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
On April 30, 1958, the District Court entered its order denying Klink's application to appeal in forma pauperis, setting forth in its order the fact that the grounds set up by Klink in his application for the writ of habeas corpus were predicated upon errors alleged to have been committed by the sentencing court at his trial and that Klink had not applied for relief by motion under 28 U.S. C.A. § 2255, or set up any facts showing that the remedy provided by such § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.
On June 24, 1958, Klink filed his application in this court for leave to prosecute in forma pauperis his appeal from the order of March 14, 1958.
On June 24, 1958, this court entered an order appointing William L. Rees, attorney at law of Topeka, Kansas, to represent Klink in connection with his application for leave to prosecute his appeal in this court in forma pauperis. Thereafter, Rees filed a memorandum brief in support of Klink's application.2 On September 11, 1958, this court entered an order granting leave to Klink to prosecute in forma pauperis his appeal in this court from the order of March 14, 1958. It further ordered that the case be heard on the original files and typewritten copies of his brief and directed the Clerk of the District Court to forward to this court the original files in the case of Lowry Newton Klink v. C. H. Looney, Warden No. 2560 H.C. The Clerk of the District Court has complied with that direction and the matter has been submitted to this court. This court appointed counsel to represent Klink on his appeal in this court.
If Klink's application for the writ of habeas corpus be given a most liberal construction, these alleged facts may be gleaned therefrom:
On or about August 25, 1957, City Officers of the City of Portland, Oregon arrested Klink and placed him in the City Jail. While in the custody of the said officers he was given an opportunity to make "a statement or suffer other unreasonable punishment." He was held incommunicado in the City Jail for a period of 12 days. He was then arrested by a United States Marshal and taken before a United States Commissioner.3 The Commissioner fixed bond and bound him over to the United States District Court. He was then taken before the United District Court "for a plea." He was asked if he desired an attorney. Klink stated that he requested the United States Marshal to permit him to call an attorney; that no pay telephone was available, and that the Marshal refused to let him place a telephone call at Government expense. Klink then stated in the presence of the Marshal and the United States Attorney that he would plead not guilty. Klink was then taken before a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon on a removal procedure. An order was entered by the Oregon District Court directing his removal to St. Paul, Minnesota. He was then transported to St. Paul and taken before a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota4 "for a plea...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alden v. State of Montana
...Cir., 105 F.2d 896, 900; Yodock v. United States, 3 Cir., 196 F.2d 1018; Strand v. Schmittroth, 9 Cir., 251 F.2d 590, 600; Klink v. Looney, 10 Cir., 262 F.2d 119, 121. The allegations under ground No. 6 "Irregularity of Informations filed in District Court" are difficult to understand. It a......
-
Com. ex rel. Bonomo v. Haas
...accused has been brought within the state, Commonwealth ex rel. Patton v. Tees, 179 Pa.Super. 605, 118 A.2d 585 (1955); Klink v. Looney, 262 F.2d 119 (10th Cir. 1958), it is clear Page 816 that many demanding state courts, like the Guerrieri court, have not even mentioned that harsh doctrin......
-
Collins v. State
...under Section 2255 (U.S.C.A.). Tanner v. United States, 10 Cir., 296 F.2d 218; Roddy v. United States, 10 Cir., 296 F.2d 9; Klink v. Looney, 10 Cir., 262 F.2d 119; Whitney v. Zerbst, 10 Cir., 62 F.2d Appellant's contention is without merit. The next contention, that appellant was held by po......
-
United States v. Adams
...the accused is brought before it. The fact that the arrest was unlawful * * * would not affect such jurisdiction." Klink v. Looney, 262 F.2d 119, 121 (10th Cir.1958). "An illegal arrest does not void a conviction, nor is it grounds for a collateral attack upon a judgment of conviction." Rod......