Widener v. Harris, 3294.
| Decision Date | 01 August 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 3294.,3294. |
| Citation | 60 F.2d 956 |
| Parties | WIDENER v. HARRIS, Superintendent of Federal Industrial Institution for Women. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Stuart M. Wood, of Charleston, W. Va., for appellant.
Okey P. Keadle, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Huntington, W. Va. (James Damron, U. S. Atty., and Philip Angel, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Huntington, W. Va., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, NORTHCOTT, and SOPER, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal in a habeas corpus proceeding. Petitioner was indicted with her husband for violation of section 3296 of the Revised Statutes (26 USCA § 404). The indictment contained two counts, one charging removal of distilled spirits on which the tax had not been paid, the other charging concealment after removal. Petitioner pleaded guilty to the charges contained in the indictment and on May 16, 1931, was sentenced to five years' imprisonment in the Federal Industrial Institution for Women at Alderson, W. Va. She entered upon the service of the sentence, but later filed with the judge below a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which she alleged that she had been misled into entering the plea of guilty, that the judge in sentencing her had taken into consideration a charge of crime of which she had been acquitted and that the sentence imposed upon her was not authorized by statute and constituted cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Constitution (Const. Amend. 8). After a hearing had upon the return to the writ, the judge denied the prayer of the petitioner to be released from custody; and from the order discharging the writ she prosecutes this appeal.
It is clear that in habeas corpus proceedings the court cannot consider such matters as the fact that petitioner was misled into entering a plea of guilty, that the judge in imposing punishment improperly considered a charge of crime of which petitioner had been acquitted, or that the punishment was excessive in view of the facts of the case. These are matters which must be availed of in the original cause. "Upon habeas corpus the court examines only the power and authority of the court to act, not the correctness of its conclusions." Matter of Gregory, 219 U. S. 210, 31 S. Ct. 143, 144, 55 L. Ed. 184; Glasgow v. Moyer, 225 U. S. 420, 428, 32 S. Ct. 753, 56 L. Ed. 1147. It is well settled that the writ may not be used to correct errors or abuses of discretion in a proceeding in which petitioner has been sentenced; and that nothing in the habeas corpus proceeding can be used to add to or amplify the record in the cause in which sentence was imposed. Johnson v. Hoy, 227 U. S. 245, 33 S. Ct. 240, 57 L. Ed. 497; Harlan v. McGourin, 218 U. S. 442, 31 S. Ct. 44, 54 L. Ed. 1101, 21 Ann. Cas. 849; In re Lincoln, 202 U. S. 178, 26 S. Ct. 602, 50 L. Ed. 984; Riggins v. U. S., 199 U. S. 547, 26 S. Ct. 147, 50 L. Ed. 303; Moyer v. Anderson (C. C. A. 5th) 203 F. 881; Clayman v. Smithers (C. C. A. 4th) 18 F.(2d) 955; Riggs v. Workman (C. C. A. 4th) 14 F.(2d) 5, 10.
The only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'MALLEY v. Hiatt
...question we consider here is whether the sentence imposed upon petitioner is justified by the record in the original cause. Widener v. Harris, 4 Cir., 60 F.2d 956. The function of the writ of habeas corpus is to determine whether or not the prisoner is entitled to immediate release and not ......
-
Shaver v. Ellis
...habeas corpus. The sole purpose of such proceedings is to test the validity or legality of the restraint of the petitioner. Widener v. Harris, 4 Cir., 60 F.2d 956; United States ex rel. Sheffield v. Waller, D.C.La., 126 F.Supp. 537, affirmed per curiam 5 Cir., 224 F.2d 280; Ex parte Banspac......
-
Johnson v. United States, 7913.
...distinct offenses under the statutes and are separately punishable even when both actions are proved by the same testimony. Widener v. Harris, 4 Cir., 60 F.2d 956; Rosser v. United States, 4 Cir., 75 F.2d 498, certiorari denied 294 U.S. 730, 55 S.Ct. 638, 79 L.Ed. 1259; Tiller v. Hudspeth, ......
-
Cook v. United States
...4, certiorari denied 1932, 287 U.S. 633, 53 S.Ct. 84, 77 L.Ed. 549; Matchok v. United States, 3 Cir., 1932, 60 F.2d 266; Widener v. Harris, 4 Cir., 1932, 60 F.2d 956. These cases are a complete answer to the apprehension expressed by appellant that (unless the sentence is lawfully corrected......