Fenton v. Aderhold

Fifth Circuit

Fenton v. Aderhold

44 F.2d 787, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 3442

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 19, 1930

DocketNo. 6034

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 44 F.2d 787 (Fenton v. Aderhold) 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

Fenton v. Aderhold, 44 F.2d 787, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 3442 (5th Cir. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

FOSTER, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

The material allegations of the petition, in substance, are that appellant was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on a plea of guilty for a violation of the Dyer Act and sentenced to the Federal penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia; that petitioner does not remember pleading guilty; and that at the time of the trial he was insane and did not know what he was doing. Exhibits attached to the petition tend to show that after his incarceration in the penitentiary the petitioner was insane and whs sent to the St. Elizabeth’s Hospital at Washington, D. C., for observation and treatment and was cured of his temporary insanity and returned to the penitentiary.

Appellant contends that the court was without jurisdiction to /try him and therefore his present incarceration is illegal. If he were insane at the time of the commission of the act and when tried, that was a question to be considered by the trial court. It was a matter of defense and the court had jurisdiction to decide it. No plea of insanity was interposed, and undoubtedly the court had jurisdiction over both the offense and the person of the petitioner. It is well settled that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be made to take the place of a writ of error and the inquiry is limited as to whether the trial court had jurisdiction and imposed a legal sentence. The conduct of the trial cannot be inquired into collaterally on habeas corpus. Ex parte Parks, 93 U. S. 18, 23 L. Ed. 787; In re Eckart, 166 U. S. 481, 17 S. Ct. 638, 41 L. Ed. 1085; Harlan v. McGourin, 218 U. S. 442, 31 S. Ct. 44, 54 L. Ed. 1101, 21 Ann. Cas. 849; Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U. S. 447, 33 S. Ct. 945, 57 L. Ed. 1274, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 397.

The record presents no reversible error.

Affirmed.

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

FOSTER, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

The material allegations of the petition, in substance, are that appellant was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on a plea of guilty for a violation of the Dyer Act and sentenced to the Federal penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia; that petitioner does not remember pleading guilty; and that at the time of the trial he was insane and did not know what he was doing. Exhibits attached to the petition tend to show that after his incarceration in the penitentiary the petitioner was insane and whs sent to the St. Elizabeth’s Hospital at Washington, D. C., for observation and treatment and was cured of his temporary insanity and returned to the penitentiary.

Appellant contends that the court was without jurisdiction to /try him and therefore his present incarceration is illegal. If he were insane at the time of the commission of the act and when tried, that was a question to be considered by the trial court. It was a matter of defense and the court had jurisdiction to decide it. No plea of insanity was interposed, and undoubtedly the court had jurisdiction over both the offense and the person of the petitioner. It is well settled that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be made to take the place of a writ of error and the inquiry is limited as to whether the trial court had jurisdiction and imposed a legal sentence. The conduct of the trial cannot be inquired into collaterally on habeas corpus. Ex parte Parks, 93 U. S. 18, 23 L. Ed. 787; In re Eckart, 166 U. S. 481, 17 S. Ct. 638, 41 L. Ed. 1085; Harlan v. McGourin, 218 U. S. 442, 31 S. Ct. 44, 54 L. Ed. 1101, 21 Ann. Cas. 849; Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U. S. 447, 33 S. Ct. 945, 57 L. Ed. 1274, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 397.

The record presents no reversible error.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 F.2d 787, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 3442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fenton-v-aderhold-ca5-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack