Steffler v. United States

• Decision Date: 03 May 1943
• Docket Number: No. 14,O,14
• Citation: 87 L.Ed. 1197,63 S.Ct. 948,319 U.S. 38
• Parties: STEFFLER v. UNITED STATES. riginal
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

319 U.S. 38

63 S.Ct. 948

87 L.Ed. 1197

STEFFLER

v UNITED STATES.

No. 14, Original.

Decided May 3, 1943.

Fred Steffler, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

In 1938 petitioner pleaded guilty, in the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to an indictment charging him with entering a state bank insured with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, with intent to commit larceny, 50 Stat. 749, 12 U.S.C.A. § 588b, and was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. In 1942 he made a motion in that court to set aside the judgment of conviction on the grounds, among others, that the indictment did not state an offense against the United States and that he had been denied the assistance of counsel at the trial. The District Court denied the motion without taking testimony or making findings of fact, and denied an application for rehearing. Petitioner lodged with the clerk of the District Court a petition for leave to appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals in forma pauperis. The clerk returned this to him by letter, stating, 'Under the law the petition to prosecute an appeal in forma pauperis should be submitted to the United States circuit court of appeals and not the district court. Therefore your motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis and order thereon are returned herewith.'

Petitioner then applied to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, which court denied the application. He now seeks certiorari in this Court under § 262 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 377, 28 U.S.C.A. § 377 (see In re 620 Church St. Corporation, 299 U.S. 24, 26, 57 S.Ct. 88, 89, 81 L.Ed. 16; Holiday v. Johnston, 313 U.S. 342, 348, 550, 61 S.Ct. 1015, 1016, 85 L.Ed. 1392, n. 2), upon a petition which sets up, among other alleged errors, the denial by the District Court of his motion to set aside the judgment of conviction, and its refusal to entertain his application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. He also asks to be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in this Court.

It is evident on the face of the papers that petitioner has been unable to prosecute an appeal or to secure ap- pellate review by reason of the refusal of the District Court to entertain his application to appeal in forma pauperis and the denial of a like application by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Appeal from the District Court's order denying petitioner's motion to vacate the conviction is governed by § 8(c) of the Act of February 13, 1925, 28 U.S.C. § 230, 28 U.S.C.A. § 230, which requires that proper application be made for allowance of an appeal. Wells v. United States, 318 U.S. 257, 63 S.Ct. 582, 87 L.Ed. —-, and cases cited. But petitioner's filing of a motion for leave to appeal with the clerk of the District Court was a sufficient application, in view of the fact that an appeal may be allowed by either the District Court or the district judge. Ex parte Montgomery & E. Railroad Co., 95 U.S. 221, 227, 24 L.Ed. 355; Alaska Packers Ass'n v. Pillsbury, 301 U.S. 174, 175, 176, 57 S.Ct. 682, 683, 81 L.Ed. 988. The District Court declined to consider petitioner's application, apparently on the ground that the in forma pauperis statute required that his right to appeal as a poor person be determined by the Circuit Court of Appeals instead...