Robinson v. Johnston, 9535.
| Decision Date | 10 August 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 9535.,9535. |
| Citation | 130 F.2d 202 |
| Parties | ROBINSON v. JOHNSTON, Warden. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Fredrik S. Waiss, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Frank J. Hennessy, U. S. Atty., and Robert B. McMillan and A. J. Zirpoli, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before WILBUR, GARRECHT, DENMAN, MATHEWS, STEPHENS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
This court in an earlier opinion, Robinson v. Johnston, 118 F.2d 998, affirmed an order denying appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, ordered the vacation of the judgment and remanded the case with leave "for further proceedings, including leave to petitioner to apply for a hearing before the court en banc." United States ex rel. Robinson v. Johnston, 62 S.Ct. 1301, 86 L.Ed. ___.
The court of its own motion ordered an en banc hearing and appointed counsel for the petitioner. The matter has now been submitted on briefs and oral argument of counsel for both parties.
The factual basis of the petition need not again be stated. The affirmance, one judge dissenting, was on the ground that the order of the Federal district court for Kentucky, made October 12, 1936, conclusively determined the question of petitioner's sanity at the time of his plea and of his then waiver of counsel. The court is now of opinion, in line with the views expressed by the judge originally dissenting, 118 F.2d 1001, that that order should be treated as tentative only, and as having been impliedly vacated by the later order permitting the withdrawal of the motion for a new trial and supporting papers on which the order was predicated. This view necessitates a reversal, since it is clear that the factual issues tendered by the petition require the issuance of the writ.
The order below is accordingly reversed and the case remanded with directions to issue the writ and proceed to a hearing and determination of the merits.
I adhere to the view expressed in the earlier opinion referred to by my associates.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United State v. Morgan
...... . 16. Allen v. United States, 162 F.2d 193; Robinson v. Johnston, 118 F.2d 998, 1001, vacated and remanded for further proceedings 316 U.S. 649, 62 ......
-
Western Pac. RR Corp. v. Western Pac. R. Co.
...Judges and one District Judge, and, upon suggestion of one of the Judges, was heard en banc by all Circuit Judges. 3 See Robinson v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 130 F. 2d 202. 1 In recent years it has become the custom of counsel almost as a matter of course to petition the full membership of the cou......
-
Robinson v. United States
...118 F.2d 998; United States ex rel. Robinson v. Johnston (1941), 316 U.S. 649, 62 S.Ct. 1301, 86 L.Ed. 1732; and Robinson v. Johnston (C.A.9), (1942), 130 F.2d 202. 3 This opinion may be read to obtain the high points of the facts of record dealing with the commission of the offense, said f......
-
United States v. Steese
......Johnston, 9 Cir., 129 F.2d 889, 891, it does not appear from the record that the appellant's right to ...See Robinson v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 118 F.2d 998, 1001; 9 Tinkoff v. United States, 7 Cir., 129 F.2d 21; United ......