United States v. Mierzanka, Cr. No. 5208.

• Citation: 89 F. Supp. 573
• Decision Date: 28 June 1949
• Docket Number: Cr. No. 5208.
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. MIERZANKA.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

89 F. Supp. 573

UNITED STATES v. MIERZANKA.

Cr. No. 5208.

United States District Court W. D. Michigan, S. D.

June 28, 1949.

Joseph F. Deeb, United States Attorney, Grand Rapids, Mich., for the United States.

Stanley C. Mierzanka appeared in pro. per.

STARR, District Judge.

On May 7, 1947, defendant Mierzanka, alias Stanley Mason, alias Stanley Milanowski, alias Charles Stanley Leonard, alias Charles Levandowski, alias Stanley Leonard Walter alias John Miezauka, was indicted in this court by a grand jury, the indictment charging violation of the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act 18 United States Code, § 408 Revised Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2311-2313. Upon his arrest, arraignment, and plea of guilty, he was sentenced on November 13, 1947, to a term of four years and is now confined in the United States penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas.

On March 2, 1949, Mierzanka filed application in this court for a writ of error coram nobis, alleging in substance that this court had no jurisdiction or authority to enter a judgment of conviction and impose sentence upon him, because he was under the prior jurisdiction and control of the State of Michigan by virtue of a warrant dated April 22, 1946, for his arrest for an offense under the State law. He asked that the judgment of conviction and the sentence of imprisonment be vacated and set aside.

The writ of error coram nobis has been abolished, Rule 60(b), as amended, of the Rules of Civil Procedure for District Courts, 28 U.S.C.A. However, as defendant filed his application in propria persona and without the benefit of counsel, the court will consider his application as a motion to vacate judgment and sentence.

It appears that a warrant had been issued April 22, 1946, for defendant's arrest for an offense under the laws of the State of Michigan. The question presented is whether or not, by the mere issuance of a warrant, the State of Michigan obtained prior jurisdiction of defendant.

The law is established in both civil and criminal cases that where a State court and a court of the United States may each take jurisdiction, the court which first takes jurisdiction holds it to the exclusion of the other. Taylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall 366, 370, 83 U.S. 366, 370, 21 L.Ed. 287; Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 42 S.Ct. 309, 66 L.Ed. 607, 22 A.L.R. 879; Grant v. Guernsey, 10 Cir., 63 F.2d 163, certiorari denied 289 U.S. 744, 53 S.Ct. 688, 77 L.Ed. 1491. In 14 Am.Jur. § 243, pages 435, 436, it is stated: "It is a familiar principle that when a court of competent jurisdiction acquires jurisdiction of the subject matter of a case, its authority continues, subject only to the appellate authority, until the matter is finally and completely disposed of, and that no court of co-ordinate authority is at liberty to interfere with its action. This doctrine is applicable to civil cases, to criminal prosecutions, and to courts-martial."

It is clear that the State of Michigan did not obtain prior jurisdiction over defendant Mierzanka by the mere issuance of the warrant on April 22, 1946.

"Any writ is process, the two terms being interchangeable. Process includes warrants for the arrest of a person * * * and other forms of mesne and final, as well as original, process by which a party or his property is brought before the court and subjected to its jurisdiction." 42 Am.Jur. § 2, pages 5, 6.

"Service of process is for the purpose of notifying a defendant of the claim or charge against him so that he may properly prepare himself to answer it. It is this notice which gives the court jurisdiction to proceed." 42 Am.Jur. § 3, page 7.

"The constitutional guaranty of due process of law means notice and opportunity to be heard and to defend before a competent tribunal vested with jurisdiction of the subject...