Singleton v. Clemmer, 9579.

• Decision Date: 01 March 1948
• Docket Number: No. 9579.,9579.
• Citation: Singleton v. Clemmer, 166 F.2d 963, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 107 (D.C. Cir. 1948)
• Parties: SINGLETON v. CLEMMER, Director of Department of Corrections of District of Columbia.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

83 US App. DC 107, 166 F.2d 963 (1948)

SINGLETON v.CLEMMER, Director of Department of Corrections of District of Columbia.

No. 9579.

United States Court of Appeals. District of Columbia.

Argued January 15, 1948.

Decided March 1, 1948.

Mr. Bernard Margolius, of Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), for appellant.

Mr. John D. Lane, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty., and Oliver O. Dibble, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.Mr. Sidney S. Sachs, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER and PRETTYMAN, Associate Justices.

WILBUR K. MILLER, Associate Justice.

The appellant was indicted in 1944 in the Eastern District of Louisiana for violating the National Stolen Property Act, 18 U.S. C.A. § 413 et seq.Having been arrested in the District of Columbia and having received a copy of the Louisiana indictment, he stated in writing that he wished to plead nolo contendere, to waive trial in the district in which the indictment was pending and to consent to disposition of the case in the district in which he was arrested, subject to the approval of the United States attorney for each district, all as permitted by Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,18 U.S.C.A.followingsection 687.The two United States attorneys gave written approval of the suggested procedure, whereupon the clerk of the Louisiana court transmitted the papers in the proceeding to the clerk of the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

When Singleton appeared in the District of Columbia court and attempted to plead nolo contendere, the court refused to accept the plea.He thereupon entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced.On January 22, 1947, the appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.The writ was issued and, after hearing, was discharged and the appellant was remanded to custody.This appeal is from that action of the trial court.The appellant asserts that the court's refusal to accept a plea of nolo contendere was a denial of due process of law which deprived the court of jurisdiction.

The appellant's position is based on the theory that Rule 20 is not to be considered in connection with Rule 11, which provides "A defendant may plead not guilty, guilty or, with the consent of the court, nolo contendere."¹He contends that, under Rule 20, when he stated that he wished to plead nolo contendere and obtained the approval of the two United States attorneys, the prosecution was in the District of Columbia only for the purpose of receiving that plea; that, when the court rejected it, it had no further jurisdiction.

But Rule 20 gives to the district in which the arrest was made jurisdiction to receive a plea of guilty or nolo contendere; and provides "If after the proceeding has been transferred the defendant pleads not guilty, the clerk shall return the papers to the court in which the prosecution was commenced and the proceeding shall be restored to the docket of that ...