Annino v. Sanford

Fifth Circuit

Annino v. Sanford

142 F.2d 672, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3480

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 19, 1944

DocketNo. 10983

StatusPublished

This text of 142 F.2d 672 (Annino v. Sanford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Annino v. Sanford, 142 F.2d 672, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3480 (5th Cir. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner for habeas corpus was imprisoned under the sentence of a courtmartial for violation of the Articles of War punishing desertion and escape from confinement, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1530, 1541. The district judge on the hearing found that the court was properly constituted, that the accused had counsel appointed by the court and accepted by him, was fully heard, and that accused did not testify because, though advised of his right to do so by court and counsel, he elected to remain silent. These findings are supported by the record, and show a legal trial, if a habeas corpus court has any authority to review the proceedings of a courtmartial in these respects. The trial was reviewed and approved by the proper commanding officers.

The petitioner asserts in his notice of appeal that he was not lawfully a soldier, because he had been convicted of a felony in a State court and was on parole when he was inducted into the army, and thus was not a person subject to military law. No evidence on this question appears in the record, and the judge made no finding on it. The question cannot be considered.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner for habeas corpus was imprisoned under the sentence of a courtmartial for violation of the Articles of War punishing desertion and escape from confinement, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1530, 1541. The district judge on the hearing found that the court was properly constituted, that the accused had counsel appointed by the court and accepted by him, was fully heard, and that accused did not testify because, though advised of his right to do so by court and counsel, he elected to remain silent. These findings are supported by the record, and show a legal trial, if a habeas corpus court has any authority to review the proceedings of a courtmartial in these respects. The trial was reviewed and approved by the proper commanding officers.

The petitioner asserts in his notice of appeal that he was not lawfully a soldier, because he had been convicted of a felony in a State court and was on parole when he was inducted into the army, and thus was not a person subject to military law. No evidence on this question appears in the record, and the judge made no finding on it. The question cannot be considered.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 F.2d 672, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/annino-v-sanford-ca5-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack