Fitzgerald v. Sanford

Fifth Circuit

Fitzgerald v. Sanford

142 F.2d 445, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3350

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 9, 1944

DocketNo. 10828

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 142 F.2d 445 (Fitzgerald 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

Fitzgerald v. Sanford, 142 F.2d 445, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3350 (5th Cir. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The complaint on habeas corpus is that appellant was ill before and at the time of his trial, that the trial was unduly delayed, that he was not granted process to get at government’s expense witnesses in confinement across the continent at Alcatraz and McNeils Island prisons; and that though counsel was appointed for him the counsel advised him to plead guilty and obtain four years of imprisonment, the prosecution contending for eight years, and the law authorizing twenty-five years. A plea of guilty entered under those circumstances was not under such duress as to make it and the sentence pronounced upon it void in a collateral attack upon it. The witnesses desired were outside the district and far beyond 100 miles, and no law provided for getting them at the expense of the government. 28 U.S.C.A. § 656. The refusal, if wrong, would be remediable by appeal and not by habeas corpus. The judgment discharging the writ is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The complaint on habeas corpus is that appellant was ill before and at the time of his trial, that the trial was unduly delayed, that he was not granted process to get at government’s expense witnesses in confinement across the continent at Alcatraz and McNeils Island prisons; and that though counsel was appointed for him the counsel advised him to plead guilty and obtain four years of imprisonment, the prosecution contending for eight years, and the law authorizing twenty-five years. A plea of guilty entered under those circumstances was not under such duress as to make it and the sentence pronounced upon it void in a collateral attack upon it. The witnesses desired were outside the district and far beyond 100 miles, and no law provided for getting them at the expense of the government. 28 U.S.C.A. § 656. The refusal, if wrong, would be remediable by appeal and not by habeas corpus. The judgment discharging the writ is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 F.2d 445, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzgerald-v-sanford-ca5-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack