Osborn v. Swope, 14849.
Decision Date | 10 February 1956 |
Docket Number | No. 14849.,14849. |
Citation | 230 F.2d 395 |
Parties | Floyd J. OSBORN, Appellant, v. Edwin B. SWOPE, Warden of the United States penitentiary at Alcatraz, California, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Floyd J. Osborn, in pro. per.
Lloyd H. Burke, U. S. Atty., Richard H. Foster, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before MATHEWS, POPE and FEE, Circuit Judges.
On November 17, 1954, appellant, an inmate of the United States penitentiary at Alcatraz, California, petitioned the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for a writ of habeas corpus directed to the warden of the penitentiary. The District Court did not issue any writ or any order to show cause or conduct any hearing, but, on reading and considering the petition, filed an opinion1 and entered an order denying the petition. This appeal is from that order.
It appeared from the petition that appellant was charged with having committed a murder (a violation of Article 92 of the former Articles of War, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1564, 41 Stat. 805)2 on May 2, 1947, and while subject to military law; that he was tried by a general court-martial, which found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to be imprisoned for life; that he was accordingly imprisoned at Leavenworth, Kansas, and, later, at Alcatraz, California; and that two previous petitions of his for writs of habeas corpus had been denied.3
As stated above, it appeared from the petition in this case that the offense of which appellant was found guilty was committed on May 2, 1947. It thus appeared that the offense was committed during World War II.4 Therefore the remedy afforded by Article 53 of the former Articles of War, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1525, 62 Stat. 639,5 was available to appellant from February 1, 1949, to May 31, 1951.6 However, it did not appear from the petition that appellant had availed himself of that remedy. Much less did it appear that he had exhausted it. It therefore did not appear that he was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, or that the District Court had jurisdiction to grant him such a writ.7 Since the remedy mentioned above is no longer available to appellant, a remand or continuance of this case to permit him to exhaust that remedy8 would be futile.
For the reasons we have stated and for those stated in the District Court's opinion,9 the order appealed from is affirmed.
1 The District Court's opinion was as follows:
"Although petitioner asserts in the present petition that the questions raised before the Kansas court were dissimilar to the contentions raised here, he sets forth no facts which would indicate that they...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hurley v. Reed, 15886.
...Hawk, 321 U.S. 114, 116, 64 S.Ct. 448, 88 L.Ed. 572; Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 203-208, 70 S.Ct. 587, 94 L.Ed. 761; Osborn v. Swope, 9 Cir., 230 F.2d 395; McMahan v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 179 F.2d 661; United States ex rel. Rowe v. Nicholson, 4 Cir., 78 F.2d 468, 471; United States ex rel. ......
-
Lee v. Madigan, 15466.
...promulgated pursuant thereto. This Court has previously applied this date in considering the language of Article 92. Osborn v. Swope, 9 Cir., 230 F.2d 395. The war with Japan was terminated on April 28, 1952, the effective date of the Japanese Peace Treaty, signed in San Francisco on Septem......
-
United States v. Kish, 347.
...I. 11 Adams v. Hiatt, D.C.M.D.Pa., 79 F. Supp. 433, and cases cited. 12 In addition to Suttles v. Davis, supra, see also Osborn v. Swope, 9 Cir., 1956, 230 F.2d 395, 397. 13 Par. 127c, MCM, ...
-
Lee v. Madigan, 35907.
...the offense "in time of peace," has been decided adversely by several courts, including the Ninth Circuit in the recent case of Osborn v. Swope, 230 F.2d 395, 397. In Kahn v. Anderson, supra, and Givens v. Zerbst, 255 U.S. 11, 41 S.Ct. 227, 65 L.Ed. 475, the Supreme Court held that "in time......