Terrell v. Biddle, 12699.
| Decision Date | 09 December 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 12699.,12699. |
| Parties | TERRELL v. BIDDLE, Attorney General, et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Appellant pro se.
Maurice M. Milligan, U. S. Atty., and Otto Schmid, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Kansas City, Mo., for appellees.
Before SANBORN, WOODROUGH, and RIDDICK, Circuit Judges.
On May 25, 1943, the appellant, an inmate of the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri, filed in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri a "Motion to Vacate erroneous Sentence and to resentence to conform to the Statute," in a cause entitled, "The United States of America, Plaintiff, versus H. E. Terrell, Defendant." The prayer of the motion was for a writ of habeas corpus directed to the Attorney General and the Warden of the Medical Center and for a correction of sentences which the motion states were imposed upon the appellant by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on June 5, 1941. The court below treated the motion as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, amended the title of the cause, and denied the petition "because it shows on its face that the petitioner is not entitled to a discharge from imprisonment." This appeal is from the order denying the petition and is prosecuted in forma pauperis.1
All that we can gather from the petition is that the appellant asserts that he was arrested and that his home was searched without a warrant; that he and his family were abused by the investigating and arresting officers; that he was charged, by indictment, with three separate offenses; that he received consecutive sentences aggregating six years and nine months; that the consecutive sentences were unauthorized; and that counsel appointed for him were not able and competent. It is impossible to tell from the petition what, if any, connection there was between the alleged abuses committed by government officers and the conviction of the appellant, or what the charges against him were, or what proceedings were had which led to his conviction. There is no assertion that he was denied the assistance and advice of counsel. The petition indicates that two attorneys were appointed for the appellant, one of whom he says The suggestion that separate sentences for separate offenses charged in an indictment may not be imposed and made to run consecutively is obviously without merit. It is not possible to determine from the petition what statute or statutes the appellant was charged with violating or what sentences were authorized by law. If the sentences imposed were greater than the law permitted, the court below, which had not imposed them, could not, upon a petition for habeas corpus, order their correction. See Holiday v. Johnston, 313 U.S. 342, 349, 550, 61 S.Ct. 1015, 85 L.Ed. 1392.
Our conclusion is that, upon its face, the petition of the appellant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swepston v. United States
...of imposing consecutive sentences or sentences to begin in the future. Brown v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 91 F.2d 370, 372." In Terrell v. Biddle, 8 Cir., 1943, 139 F.2d 32, certiorari denied, Terrell v. Pescor, 321 U.S. 794, 64 S.Ct. 785, 88 L.Ed. 1083, rehearing denied 322 U.S. 767, 64 S.Ct. 941,......
-
Berkoff v. Humphrey
...be vacated by the court which entered it and not nullified on collateral attack by a court of coordinate jurisdiction. See Terrell v. Biddle, 8 Cir., 139 F.2d 32, 33. Since we think that the District Court could not lawfully have granted the appellant a writ of habeas corpus, it follows tha......
-
IN RE CURTIS'PETITION
...to attack in the federal court by a writ of habeas corpus. United States ex rel. Marcial v. Fay, 2 Cir., 267 F.2d 507; Terrell v. Biddle, 8 Cir., 139 F.2d 32, denied cert. Terrel v. Pescor, 321 U.S. 794, 64 S.Ct. 785, 88 L.Ed. 1083, rehearing denied 322 U.S. 767, 64 S.Ct. 941, 88 L.Ed. 1593......
-
United States v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
...permitted, district court, which had not imposed them, could not, upon petition for habeas corpus, order their correction. Terrell v. Biddle, 8 Cir., 1943, 139 F.2d 32, certiorari denied Terrell v. Pescor, 321 U.S. 794, 64 S.Ct. 785, 88 L.Ed. 1083, rehearing denied 322 U.S. 767, 64 S.Ct. 94......