Farnsworth v. Sanford

Fifth Circuit

Farnsworth v. Sanford

103 F.2d 888, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 3690

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 11, 1939

DocketNo. 9043

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 103 F.2d 888 (Farnsworth 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

Farnsworth v. Sanford, 103 F.2d 888, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 3690 (5th Cir. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a writ of habeas corpus and remanding the petitioner to the custody of the warden of the Atlanta penitentiary. The record discloses that appellant, Farnsworth, formerly an officer of the United States navy, was indicted in the District of Columbia, charged with conspiring with two Japanese naval officers, to unlawfully disclose information affecting the national defense, in violation of Title 50, Sec. 32 of the United States Code, 50 U.S.C.A. § 32. Pie pleaded nolo contendere and later sought to withdraw his plea. This was denied and he was sentenced to serve a .term of imprisonment. He was confined in the Atlanta penitentiary. On a previous occasion he presented a petition for habeas corpus, which was denied. On appeal the judgment was affirmed by this Court. In this case a voluminous record has been built up.. In addition to the points previously considered, it is urged that he was coerced by his own counsel in entering his plea of nolo contendere; that he was not properly represented by counsel when sentenced and thereby deprived of his right to appeal; and that the trial judge abused his discretion in not permitting him to withdraw his plea. Uncontradicted evidence in the record shows these conten[889]*889tions to be without substance. On the authority of Farnsworth v. Zerbst, 5 Cir., 97 F.2d 255; Farnsworth v. Zerbst, 5 Cir., 98 F.2d 541, and Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U.S. 224, 44 S.Ct. 519, 68 L.Ed. 989, the judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a writ of habeas corpus and remanding the petitioner to the custody of the warden of the Atlanta penitentiary. The record discloses that appellant, Farnsworth, formerly an officer of the United States navy, was indicted in the District of Columbia, charged with conspiring with two Japanese naval officers, to unlawfully disclose information affecting the national defense, in violation of Title 50, Sec. 32 of the United States Code, 50 U.S.C.A. § 32. Pie pleaded nolo contendere and later sought to withdraw his plea. This was denied and he was sentenced to serve a .term of imprisonment. He was confined in the Atlanta penitentiary. On a previous occasion he presented a petition for habeas corpus, which was denied. On appeal the judgment was affirmed by this Court. In this case a voluminous record has been built up.. In addition to the points previously considered, it is urged that he was coerced by his own counsel in entering his plea of nolo contendere; that he was not properly represented by counsel when sentenced and thereby deprived of his right to appeal; and that the trial judge abused his discretion in not permitting him to withdraw his plea. Uncontradicted evidence in the record shows these conten[889]*889tions to be without substance. On the authority of Farnsworth v. Zerbst, 5 Cir., 97 F.2d 255; Farnsworth v. Zerbst, 5 Cir., 98 F.2d 541, and Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U.S. 224, 44 S.Ct. 519, 68 L.Ed. 989, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 F.2d 888, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 3690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farnsworth-v-sanford-ca5-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack