YOUNG
v.
SANFORD, WARDEN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that alleged irregularities prior to trial must be raised at trial or on appeal, not in habeas corpus, and that the finding of intelligent waiver of counsel was supported by the record.
Appellant, in habeas corpus proceedings, challenged his confinement. The grounds related to pre-trial irregularities and denial of counsel. The court …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Intelligent Waiver cases and more on FLexlaw
HOLMES, Circuit Judge.
Appellant, in habeas corpus proceedings, challenged the validity of his confinement. The court below discharged the writ and remanded him to the custody of the warden.
For these reasons, we think the order of the court was correct: The grounds for relief set forth in the petition related, with a single exception, to alleged irregularities and improprieties in the arrest and treatment of appellant prior to his trial, and in the procurement of evidence to be used against him. It is settled that such matters must be urged by way of defense upon the trial and by appeal; they do not constitute grounds for release by habeas corpus.1 The single jurisdictional ground is that appellant was denied counsel for his defense. The court below found as a fact that appellant was advised of his right to counsel when his case was called for trial, and that he expressly made an intelligent waiver of that right before entering the plea of guilty upon which sentence was imposed. This finding, being supported by the record, settles the matter.2
Affirmed.
Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U.S. 148, 19 S.Ct. 119, 43 L.Ed. 399; Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, 35 S.Ct. 582, 59 L.Ed. 909; Vermillion, v. Zerbst, 5 Gir., 97 F. 2d 347; Price v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 125 F. 2d 806; Scott v. Aderhold, 10 Cir., 110 F. 2d 797; Graham v. Squier, 9 Cir., 132 F. 2d 681; Burall v. Johnson, 9 Cir., 134 F. 2d 614.
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461; Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U. S. 269, 63 S.Ct. 236, 87 L.Ed. 268, 143 A.L.R. 435; Adkins v. Sanford, 5 Cir., 120 F. 2d 471; Johnson v. Sanford, D.C., 30 F.Supp. 716, 5 Cir., 112 F. 2d 739.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. United States, 187 F.2d 192 (D.C. Cir. 1950)
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1938)
- Adams v. United States ex rel. McCANN, 317 U.S. 269 (U.S. 1942)
- Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309 (U.S. 1915)
- Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U.S. 148 (U.S. 1898)
- Price v. Johnston, 125 F.2d 806 (9th Cir. 1942)
- Burall v. Johnson, 134 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1943)
- Adkins v. Sanford, 120 F.2d 471 (5th Cir. 1941)
- Graham v. Squier, 132 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1942)
- United States v. House, 110 F.2d 797 (9th Cir. 1940)
- Vermillion v. Zerbst, 97 F.2d 347 (5th Cir. 1938)