HENRY ROGERS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE A. KROPP, WARDEN ET AL., RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

6th Cir. | 1968-01-12
No. 18026
387 F.2d 374 United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (1968) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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

A plea to an information waives irregularities in the complaint under Michigan law, and a habeas corpus petition must allege a federal constitutional deprivation.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant sought habeas corpus relief, claiming a forged signature on a state court complaint and illegal detention. The district court denied the pet…

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 appeals from the denial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, (Supp. II, 1965-66).

His petition claims that the signature of the complaining witness on the complaint in the state court statutory rape charge was forged. It also alleges illegal detention and coercion after arrest.

The District Judge denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus without hearing on the ground that if granted the writ would not serve to free appellant, since he was also at the time (he has since been paroled) under a consecutive sentence which was not attacked.

We affirm the judgment of the District Court, but on grounds different from those cited by the District Judge.

A plea to the information under Michigan law waives any irregularity in the complaint. In re Reno, 321 Mich. 497, 500-501, 32 N.W. 2d 723, cert, denied, 335 U.S. 833, 69 S.Ct. 21, 93 L.Ed. 386 (1948). We perceive no federal constitutional deprivation in this rule.

There is no claim in appellant’s petition that any coerced confession or statement was admitted in evidence against appellant at his state court trial.

Careful inspection of the petition for writ of habeas corpus shows a failure to allege any federal constitutional deprivation which occasions the present restrictions on appellant’s freedom.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw