DocketNumber: No. 206
Citation Numbers: 74 F. Supp. 349
Judges: Follmer
Filed Date: 11/13/1947
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/26/2022
Petitioner, a military prisoner at the United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, has filed his application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. It appears that he was absent without leave from June 3, 1944, to June 5, 1944, for which he was. sentenced to forfeit twenty-five dollars ($25) of his pay and be restricted to Company Area for forty-five (45) days. He was again absent without leave from July 19, 1944, to July 28, 1944, and again sentenced to pay forfeiture of twenty dollars ($20) per month for three months-
The petition raises two contentions. Petitioner alleges that “the evidence used against him is insufficient.” While there is no merit in this claim, this is not in any event a question which may be properly raised in Habeas Corpus.
The application for Writ of Habeas Corpus is accordingly denied and the rule to show cause dismissed.
Ex parte Smith, D.C.M.D.Pa., 72 F. Supp. 935.
Transcript of Record of Hearing:, September 18, 1947, at pages 8 and 9.
“By the Petitioner: * - * * I did not have competent Counsel.
“By the Court: Let us hear a little bit about that; what was wrong with him?
“By the Petitioner: If he was competent Counsel he didn’t show it.
“By the Court: When did you decide that?
“By the Petitioner: After I received this Courts Martial. I don’t understand the law but I don’t think it was legal to give me all this time for the charges stated in the Courts Martial.
* * * # * * *
“By the Petitioner: I had one Counsel, and I believe the Counsel I had at first was a competent Counsel, because be made a statement to me that I would get a right sentence. They dismissed this Counsel and appointed another Counsel and I had an interview with this Counsel and asked him if he was a competent Counsel. He told me he was not a competent Counsel but he would try to do the best he could for me. If he had been a competent Counsel these charges here would have been reversed because it says on the record two charges were committed on the same day and I don’t see how they could be committed myself. The record shows that clearly, right there.”
Ex parte Smith, supra (and cases there cited); Maye v. Pescor, 8 Cir., 162 F.2d 641; Helms v. Humphrey, D.C., 63 F.Supp. 4; Jones v. Huff, 80 U.S.App.D. C. 254, 152 F.2d 14.