UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. CHARLES NELSON, #43203, APPELLANT,
v.
WARREN PINTO, SUPERINTENDENT
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 the appeal from the denial of habeas corpus relief was frivolous.
Relator was convicted of rape and assault in New Jersey and sought post-conviction relief, which was denied by state courts. He then filed a federal h…
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 Admission Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The relator, Nelson, is now serving sentences in a New Jersey prison imposed following a jury trial in which he was found guilty on indictments charging him with rape of a 12-year old girl and atrocious assault and battery.1 No appeal was taken from the relator’s conviction. He, however, subsequently sought post-conviction relief in connection with his rape conviction in the Néw Jersey courts, claiming: (1) rape of a 12-year old girl is not covered by the New Jersey statute which makes rape of a “woman” a crime; (2) he was denied his constitutional right of a speedy trial; and (3) erroneous admission of medical testimony at his trial.
The Law Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey rejected the relator’s contentions and the Appellate Division of the Superior Court dismissed his appeal as frivolous. (Docket No. AM-219-66, A-1308-66, June 27, 1967). The relator’s petition to appeal as an indigent to the New Jersey Supreme Court was treated as a petition for certification and denied for lack of merit. (M-74, Sept. Term 1967, Oct 3, 1967).
The instant petition for habeas corpus relief was then filed in the court below raising the identical issues presented in the New Jersey post conviction proceeding. It was denied without rehearing.
On review of the record we are of the opinion that the instant appeal is frivolous in every respect and does not merit discussion.
The Order of the District Court denying the relator’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be affirmed.
. The relator was sentenced to a term of ten to fifteen years on the rape count, and three to five years on the atrocious assault and battery count, to he served concurrently.