Earnest v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Earnest v. United States

198 F.2d 561, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3206

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJune 9, 1952

Docket11436_1

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 198 F.2d 561 (Earnest v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Earnest v. United States, 198 F.2d 561, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3206 (6th Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was sentenced in the Middle District of Tennessee upon several indictments charging violation of the postal laws and the robbery of post offices. One of these indictments was returned by a grand jury sitting in Kentucky. To it, the *562 appellant pleaded guilty, after the case was transferred from Kentucky to Tennessee under the provisions of Rule 20 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A.

Thereafter, he filed a petition for the vacation of this sentence under § 2255 of Tit. 28, U.S.C.A., and now appeals from a judgment overruling it.

The only seemingly meritorious contention in support of the appeal is that Rule 20 is unconstitutional in view of Art. 3, § 2, Clause 3, of the Constitution and the Sixth Amendment thereto, both of which provide, that trial shall be by jury and that such trial shall be held in the State where the crimes have been committed. These provisions are urged as jurisdictional and so may not be waived.

While it has sometimes been assumed, though not decided, that proceedings had in a district court upon appellant’s consent and plea of guilty is a trial in the constitutional sense, the constitutional venue provisions have been held to constitute privileges accorded to one accused of crime and may be waived, as other privileges may be waived, including trial by jury. Only U. S. v. Bink, D.C.Or., 74 F.Supp. 603, supports the appellant’s contention, but that case has been repeatedly disapproved, Levine v. U. S., 8 Cir., 182 F.2d 556, cer-tiorari denied, 340 U.S. 921, 71 S.Ct. 352, 95 L.Ed. 665, U. S. v. Gallagher, 3 Cir., 183 F.2d 342, certiorari denied, 340 U.S. 913, 71 S.Ct. 283, 95 L.Ed. 659. Precedents are there sufficiently cited.

Judgment below is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was sentenced in the Middle District of Tennessee upon several indictments charging violation of the postal laws and the robbery of post offices. One of these indictments was returned by a grand jury sitting in Kentucky. To it, the *562 appellant pleaded guilty, after the case was transferred from Kentucky to Tennessee under the provisions of Rule 20 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A.

Thereafter, he filed a petition for the vacation of this sentence under § 2255 of Tit. 28, U.S.C.A., and now appeals from a judgment overruling it.

The only seemingly meritorious contention in support of the appeal is that Rule 20 is unconstitutional in view of Art. 3, § 2, Clause 3, of the Constitution and the Sixth Amendment thereto, both of which provide, that trial shall be by jury and that such trial shall be held in the State where the crimes have been committed. These provisions are urged as jurisdictional and so may not be waived.

While it has sometimes been assumed, though not decided, that proceedings had in a district court upon appellant’s consent and plea of guilty is a trial in the constitutional sense, the constitutional venue provisions have been held to constitute privileges accorded to one accused of crime and may be waived, as other privileges may be waived, including trial by jury. Only U. S. v. Bink, D.C.Or., 74 F.Supp. 603, supports the appellant’s contention, but that case has been repeatedly disapproved, Levine v. U. S., 8 Cir., 182 F.2d 556, cer-tiorari denied, 340 U.S. 921, 71 S.Ct. 352, 95 L.Ed. 665, U. S. v. Gallagher, 3 Cir., 183 F.2d 342, certiorari denied, 340 U.S. 913, 71 S.Ct. 283, 95 L.Ed. 659. Precedents are there sufficiently cited.

Judgment below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 F.2d 561, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/earnest-v-united-states-ca6-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack