United States v. Schwenke, 196

Decision Date12 April 1955
Docket NumberNo. 196,Docket 23341.,196
Citation221 F.2d 356
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond W. SCHWENKE, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

George C. Dix, New York City, for appellant.

Leonard P. Moore, Brooklyn, N. Y. (Cornelius W. Wickersham, Jr., Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for appellee.

Before FRANK and MEDINA, Circuit Judges, and BRENNAN, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant is a native of Germany who has lived in the United States since he was three years old but who has never acquired American citizenship. In June, 1942, he duly registered under the Selective Service Act1 and, in November, 1942, he duly filed his draft questionnaire with Local Board No. 244. The Board ordered him to report for a physical examination. Defendant appeared at the examination center as ordered, but refused to submit to the examination on grounds that he was an alien enemy, and believed that he would waive his rights to an exemption as an enemy alien by submitting to the examination. In February 1943, he was arrested and indicted for violation of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, in that he "did unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly fail and neglect to perform a duty required of him under and in the execution of said Act * * *." On March 30, 1943, while represented by counsel, defendant withdrew his earlier plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty; he was then given a three-year sentence. Defendant now moves to set aside the judgment of conviction and to withdraw his plea of guilty. This motion was denied without opinion by Judge Inch, and is before us on appeal.

1. Defendant contends that he was entitled to be classified in Class IV-C Non-declarant alien; that, under the Second Hague Convention of 1907, to which the United States is a signatory, he could not be compelled to take part in operations of war against Germany, and that therefore the Board had no power to order him to undergo a physical examination. But the Selective Service Regulations then provided that registrants must submit to physical examinations before the Board would consider such claims for exemption. There is no showing that the Board was not prepared to give full consideration to his claim, if the results of the physical examination should show him otherwise fit for military service.

2. Defendant alleges that he was advised by the Assistant United States Attorney in charge of his case, his "superior,"2 and his own attorney, that he should plead guilty. Since he was in fact guilty, he was probably well advised to so plead.

3. The defendant also contends that he was denied a right owing to him, in that no presentence investigation and report, for the benefit of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • United States ex rel. Russell v. La Vallee
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • January 4, 1971
    ...United States, 296 F.2d 9, 11 (10th Cir. 1961); United States v. Williams, 254 F.2d 253, 254 (3d Cir. 1958); United States v. Schwenke, 221 F.2d 356, 358 (2d Cir. 1955) (per curiam); Cassidy v. United States, 304 F. Supp. 864, 870 (E.D.Mo.1969); United States ex rel. Boone v. Fay, 231 F.Sup......
  • Frady v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • May 7, 1965
    ...required. See, for example, the following cases: United States v. Karavias, 170 F.2d 968 (7th Cir. 1948); United States v. Schwenke, 221 F.2d 356 (2nd Cir. 1955); United States v. Williams, 254 F.2d 253 (3rd Cir. 1958); United States v. Visconti, 261 F.2d 215 (2nd Cir. 1958), cert. denied 3......
  • United States v. Warren
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • January 5, 1972
    ...the report if he feels it will not affect the disposition. United States v. Visconti, 261 F.2d 215 (2d Cir. 1958); United States v. Schwenke, 221 F.2d 356 (2d Cir. 1955). In this case Judge Motley sentenced Dr. Warren several days after the judgment was entered, and she did not wait for a r......
  • Cassidy v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • September 17, 1969
    ...report, although it is within his discretion to do so. United States v. Williams, 254 F.2d 253 (3rd Cir. 1958); United States v. Schwenke, 221 F.2d 356 (2nd Cir. 1955). To dispense with the presentence report is within the discretion of the court and authorized by Rule 32, Federal Rules of ......
  • 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