YOUNG
v.
GILL

D.C. Cir. | 1945-06-18
No. 8879
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and EDGERTON and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.
149 F.2d 843 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (1945)

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.


Holding

The court held that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly denied because the grounds raised were reviewable only on appeal, not through habeas corpus.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was convicted of grand larceny and sought a writ of habeas corpus, alleging inconsistencies and insufficiency of evidence. The district cour…

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.

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of grand larceny in 1943, and sentenced for a period of one to three years. He forwarded a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the District Court in June, 1944. The petition contains a general denial of the theft, allegations of inconsistencies in the proof and insufficiency of evidence on which to sustain the conviction.

The District Judge denied petitioner leave to file the petition without prepayment of costs because the petition alleged “no grounds reviewable by Habeas Corpus Proceedings.” However, the petitioner was granted leave, by another judge, to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

The order of the District Court must be affirmed. “When a petition is presented to a judge with a request for leave to file it, the judge may, if the petitioner is not entitled to a writ, deny leave to file it.” 1 Nothing contained in appellant’s petition would support the issuance of the writ. Each of the contentions was reviewable only on appeal.

Affirmed.

Dorsey v. Gill, 1945, — U.S.App.D.C. —, 148 F. 2d 857, 865; Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 24, 63 S.Ct. 2, 87 L.Ed. 3; 28 U.S.C. §§ 832, 835.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw