Leonard v. Hudspeth, 2060.
| Decision Date | 16 May 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 2060.,2060. |
| Citation | 112 F.2d 121 |
| Parties | LEONARD v. HUDSPETH, Warden. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Albert E. Zarlengo, of Denver, Colo., for appellant.
Summerfield S. Alexander, U. S. Atty., and Homer Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Topeka, Kan., for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and HUXMAN, Circuit Judges.
Harry S. Leonard, herein called the petitioner, together with Joseph D. Horton, Grady F. Hester, alias Brady Hester, and Jack Hilton, were charged by indictment No. 20634 in three counts returned in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Eastern Judicial District of Missouri, with violating the currency and coinage laws of the United States, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 262, 265; 18 U.S. C.A. § 88. Count 1 charged the defendants with forging and counterfeiting sixteen five dollar denomination United States treasury notes with intent to defraud. Count 2 charged the defendants with having in their possession certain falsely made, forged and counterfeit obligations of the United States with intent to defraud; and count 3 charged them with conspiring, combining, confederating and agreeing among themselves and with each other to commit offenses against the United States; that is, to violate the coinage and currency laws of the United States by forging, counterfeiting and possessing falsely forged and counterfeited obligations and securities of the United States. Petitioner was also charged in a separate indictment, No. 20633, in the same court, with passing, uttering, publishing and selling to one Jack Hilton sixteen forged and counterfeited five dollar United States treasury notes.
On June 27, 1938, petitioner pleaded guilty to all of the counts in indictment No. 20634 and also to the charge in indictment No. 20633. He was sentenced to a term of ten years' imprisonment on each of the three counts in indictment No. 20634 and to pay a fine of $1,000. In case No. 20633 petitioner was sentenced to a term of ten years, and to pay a fine of $1,000. The sentences on all counts of both indictments were made to run concurrently. Petitioner is being detained by the respondent under a commitment issued upon the sentences.
Petitioner filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus based upon the alleged grounds: First, that indictment No. 20633 is void because it charged petitioner with passing counterfeit notes to Jack Hilton, who is shown in the separate indictment to have already been in possession of the notes; second, that count 1 of indictment No. 20634 is void, because it charged the manufacture of certain specified counterfeit notes which were obviously produced with the aid of photographic negatives, elsewhere shown in the indictment to have been manufactured five days after the notes were made; third, that count 2 of indictment No. 20634 is void because it charged possession of certain specified counterfeit notes which could not have been in existence on a date prior to the manufacture of photographic negatives for their production; fourth, that count 3 of indictment No. 20634 contained errors, indicating that it was intended to be a repetition of the charge contained in indictment No. 20633; and fifth, petitioner contends that all the sentences imposed were void because he was denied his constitutional right of being represented by counsel.
The scope of inquiry in a habeas corpus proceeding is limited. It may not be used as a substitute for an appeal to correct errors occurring at the time of trial. It concerns itself solely with jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the person of the defendant, or with the preservation of constitutional guarantees to those accused of crime. Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19, 59 S.Ct. 442, 83 L.Ed. 455; Reger v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 103 F.2d 825; Buckner v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 105 F.2d 396.
None of the assaults upon the various counts of the information go to the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter, or of the person, nor do they concern themselves with any constitutional guarantee afforded accused by the constitution of the United States. They all pertain to alleged defects in the indictments, evidentiary in character, and concern themselves with the proof required to establish the offenses charged in the different counts.
Lack of evidence to sustain a charge, errors occurring at the trial, defects in the information, and all other matters falling short of an attack on the court's jurisdiction may not be challenged by habeas corpus proceedings. All such matters must be raised by appeal. Schultz v. Zerbst, 10 Cir., 73 F.2d 668; Moore v. Aderhold, 10 Cir., 108 F.2d 729; Garrison v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 108 F.2d 733.
The fifth assignment of error charges that the sentences imposed were void because petitioner was denied his constitutional right of being...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schlette v. People of State of California
...and the veracity of witnesses cannot be challenged through the medium of habeas corpus, but must be raised by appeals. Leonard v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 112 F.2d 121. The state adjudication of factual questions will be relied upon by federal courts. Brown v. Allen, supra. Where the basic facts ......
-
Thompson v. Harris
... ... counsel, Alexander v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 137 ... F.2d 712; Norris v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 114 ... F.2d 1007; Scott v. Aderbold, 10 Cir., 116 ... F.2d 797; the constitutional ... guarantees to those accused of crime. Leonard v ... Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 112 F.2d 121. The limitations ... upon remedies afforded by habeas ... ...
-
Bissell v. Amrine
...v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 115 F.2d 114; Bugg v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 113 F.2d 260; Blood v. Hudspeth, 10 cir., 113 F.2d 470; Leonard v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 112 F.2d 121; Creel v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 110 F.2d 762; v. Hudspeth, 110 F.2d 812; Towne v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 108 F.2d 676; Moore v. Aderhold......
-
Macomber v. Hudspeth, 2141.
...Aderhold, 10 Cir., 108 F.2d 729; Garrison v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 108 F.2d 733; McDonald v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 108 F.2d 943; Leonard v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 112 F.2d 121. And, the waiver of such right in that manner will ordinarily be implied where the accused appears in court without counsel a......