Falkowski v. Mayo

Fifth Circuit

Falkowski v. Mayo

173 F.2d 742, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2895

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 28, 1949

DocketNo. 12630

StatusPublished

This text of 173 F.2d 742 (Falkowski v. Mayo) 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

Falkowski v. Mayo, 173 F.2d 742, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2895 (5th Cir. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the warden of the State Prison was denied as insufficient on its face. The petition is based on a general allegation of violation of the “Bill of Rights, Articles Four and Six,” and “Bill of Rights, Amendment Fourteen, ‘No State shall make and enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.’ ” It also quoted, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense,” and states that “he was denied the right of counsel for his defense.” It does not appear whether there was a jury trial, or a plea, whether the applicant for the writ is old or young, experienced or not, that he was intimidated or friendless. The procedural law relied on is inapplicable to a State court trial. The quotation from the Fourteenth Amendment as to abridging privileges and immunities does not abolish State court prosecutions. The facts are so vaguely stated as not to demand interference by the federal courts with a State convict. We cannot say the district judge erred in refusing the writ.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the warden of the State Prison was denied as insufficient on its face. The petition is based on a general allegation of violation of the “Bill of Rights, Articles Four and Six,” and “Bill of Rights, Amendment Fourteen, ‘No State shall make and enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.’ ” It also quoted, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense,” and states that “he was denied the right of counsel for his defense.” It does not appear whether there was a jury trial, or a plea, whether the applicant for the writ is old or young, experienced or not, that he was intimidated or friendless. The procedural law relied on is inapplicable to a State court trial. The quotation from the Fourteenth Amendment as to abridging privileges and immunities does not abolish State court prosecutions. The facts are so vaguely stated as not to demand interference by the federal courts with a State convict. We cannot say the district judge erred in refusing the writ.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 F.2d 742, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/falkowski-v-mayo-ca5-1949.