Davis v. Humphrey

M.D. Pennsylvania

Davis v. Humphrey

80 F. Supp. 513, 1948 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2127

CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 11, 1948

DocketNo. 230

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 80 F. Supp. 513 (Davis v. Humphrey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. Humphrey, 80 F. Supp. 513, 1948 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2127 (M.D. Pa. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

FOLLMER, District Judge.

Petitioner filed his application for writ of habeas corpus. He alleges that he was sentenced to a term of four years by the [514]*514United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Southern Division, on January 29, 1945, under 18 U. S.C.A. § 76¹ on Counts Two, Four, Six and Eight of an indictment found against him in that District. No copy of the Indictment is attached to his petition. His contention is that he should have been sentenced under 18 U.S.C.A. § 76b,² and that the possible maximum on the four counts under said section is $1,000. or two years, or both.

A rule to show cause issued and Respondent thereupon moved that this Court refuse to entertain the application pursuant to the provisions of Section 2255 of the new Federal Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.

Upon consideration thereof, 1 am of the opinion that this is clearly a case predicated upon an allegation that the sentence imposed was not authorized by law, and that a motion to the court which imposed the sentence is both adequate and effective to test the legality of his detention. All of the data, information and records pertinent to the question involved, are in that court.

The Rule to Show Cause is hereby vacated and a writ of habeas corpus is accordingly refused.

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

FOLLMER, District Judge.

Petitioner filed his application for writ of habeas corpus. He alleges that he was sentenced to a term of four years by the [514]*514United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Southern Division, on January 29, 1945, under 18 U. S.C.A. § 76¹ on Counts Two, Four, Six and Eight of an indictment found against him in that District. No copy of the Indictment is attached to his petition. His contention is that he should have been sentenced under 18 U.S.C.A. § 76b,² and that the possible maximum on the four counts under said section is $1,000. or two years, or both.

A rule to show cause issued and Respondent thereupon moved that this Court refuse to entertain the application pursuant to the provisions of Section 2255 of the new Federal Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.

Upon consideration thereof, 1 am of the opinion that this is clearly a case predicated upon an allegation that the sentence imposed was not authorized by law, and that a motion to the court which imposed the sentence is both adequate and effective to test the legality of his detention. All of the data, information and records pertinent to the question involved, are in that court.

The Rule to Show Cause is hereby vacated and a writ of habeas corpus is accordingly refused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 F. Supp. 513, 1948 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-humphrey-pamd-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack