United States v. Ragen

Citation222 F.2d 654
Decision Date25 May 1955
Docket NumberNo. 11380.,11380.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America ex rel. Donald H. LILYROTH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph E. RAGEN, Warden, Illinois State Penitentiary, Joliet, Illinois, Respondent-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

Thomas P. Sullivan, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

Latham Castle, Atty. Gen., William C. Wines, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raymond S. Sarnow, A. Zola Groves, Asst. Attys. Gen., of counsel, for appellee.

Before FINNEGAN, SWAIN, and SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judges.

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge.

On October 21, 1954 petitioner filed in the district court a petition for writ of habeas corpus under Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 wherein he challenged the constitutionality of proceedings in the circuit court of Lee county, Illinois on January 4, 1943, which resulted in his conviction of the crime of burglary. This is an appeal from an order of the district court dismissing the petition on respondent's motion.

Petitioner's conviction followed a plea of guilty. He was sentenced to imprisonment for one year to life and, pursuant to that sentence, he was incarcerated in the Illinois state penitentiary at Joliet beginning January 7, 1943. During July, 1949 petitioner was on parole from the Illinois state penitentiary. On July 19, 1949 he was arrested in California for violation of parole. On October 5, 1949 he was placed in the United States penitentiary at McNeil Island, Washington, from which he was released on April 29, 1951 to the sheriff of Pierce county, Washington, for return to Illinois. On May 29, 1952 he was surrendered by the sheriff of Pierce county to Illinois officials who, on June 2, 1952, returned him to the Illinois state penitentiary. The record does not reveal the reasons that petitioner was in the United States penitentiary, or in the custody of the sheriff of Pierce county. Upon his return to the Illinois state penitentiary, he was placed in absolute quarantine for approximately two weeks in the prison diagnostic depot. He was ill during the month of July, 1952 and spent five days in the penitentiary's general hospital. During the third week of July, 1952, he first learned of the Illinois post-conviction hearing act.1 On December 13, 1952, he filed in the circuit court of Lee county, a motion for leave to file a belated petition under said act, which motion was denied on January 26, 1953. On March 27, 1953 the Illinois Supreme Court denied a writ of error to review the circuit court's action. On May 25, 1953 the United States Supreme Court denied petitioner a writ of certiorari to review this decision. Lilyroth v. People of State of Illinois, 345 U.S. 967, 73 S.Ct. 953, 97 L.Ed. 1385. On September 3, 1953 his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, attacking the original conviction, was denied by the circuit court of Lee county, and on November 10, 1953 the United States Supreme Court refused certiorari to review that action. Lilyroth v. Ragen, 346 U.S. 902, 74 S.Ct. 230, 98 L.Ed. 402. The Illinois statutory limitation on a writ of coram nobis had expired prior to October 21, 1954.

The Illinois Supreme Court, in denying a writ of error on March 27, 1953 to the circuit court of Lee county, said in part:

"Petitioner was convicted in 1943. Under the provisions of the Post Conviction Hearing Act, a petition for relief must be filed within five years from the judgment of conviction or within three years from August 4, 1949, the effective date of the Act, whichever is later. Ill.Rev.Stat. 1951, ch. 38, sec. 826. In petitioner\'s case, a petition should have been filed on or before August 4, 1952, unless facts were alleged showing that the delay was not due to petitioner\'s culpable negligence. In seeking leave to file such a petition, petitioner recognized that the period of limitations had expired and attempted to justify his failure to file by an allegation that he had been outside the state of Illinois from the effective date of the act until June 2, 1952. The trial court held that this allegation was insufficient to justify the delay. We are of the opinion that the trial court was correct in so ruling. While it might be true that in two months\' time, petitioner could not gather all his evidence and prepare for trial, he had ample time in which to file his petition." (Italics supplied for emphasis.)

It is significant that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • United States v. Ragen
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 20 Julio 1955
    ...under the Act of August 4, 1949 * * *.\' Ferguson v. Ragen, 338 U.S. 833, 70 S.Ct. 50 94 L.Ed. 508." In United States ex rel. Lilyroth v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 222 F.2d 654 (decided May 25, 1955), this Court held an out-of-time proceeding under the Illinois Post-Conviction Hearing Act was ineffect......
  • Daugharty v. Gladden
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 20 Junio 1958
    ...are not exhausted with respect to a question not presented for adjudication in an available state court proceeding. See United States v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 222 F.2d 654, 656. As redefined in his supplemental brief on appeal, Daugharty argues that two federal questions involving the state court ......
  • United States v. Ragen
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 3 Julio 1957
    ...the points urged in the Federal District Court have been presented to the state court. Thus, we said, in United States ex rel. Lilyroth v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 222 F.2d 654, at page 656: "To present one case to the state courts without success, followed by the presentation of another case to the ......
  • United States v. Fay
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 14 Julio 1964
    ...517-518 (S.D.N.Y.1960). 8 United States ex rel. Kulikauskas v. Murphy, 293 F.2d 563, 566 (2d Cir. 1961); United States ex rel. Lilyroth v. Ragen, 222 F.2d 654, 656 (7th Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 939, 76 S.Ct. 312, 100 L. Ed. 820 (1956); Ex parte Farrell, 189 F.2d 540, 545-546 (1st ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT