In re Stutzman

S.D. Texas

In re Stutzman

12 F.2d 98, 1926 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1078

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Texas

DecidedApril 7, 1926

DocketNo. 786

StatusPublished

This text of 12 F.2d 98 (In re Stutzman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Stutzman, 12 F.2d 98, 1926 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1078 (S.D. Tex. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

HUTCHESON, District Judge.

This petition was filed -by the clerk by order of the court and thereafter came on for inspection by me. It appearing from the petition that the only complaint made is to the form of the judgment, that under the Indeterminate Sentence Law of Texas (Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, article 865a) it-should have contained a maximum and a minimum provision rather than one indefinite term, and it further appearing from said petition that both of said sentences were appealed, and both affirmed as valid by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, it is apparent on the face of the petition that it is without merit, and should be denied) both because, if there was any error in the judgment it was an insubstantial and amendable error on appeal (see Alzalde v. State, 173 S. W. 298, 76 Tex. Cr. R. 169; Orange v. State, 173 S. W. 297, 76 Tex. Cr. R. 194), and because, the judgment having been affirmed as valid by the highest court of Texas, it cannot be considered, either that there was an error in fact in the judgment, or that such error was not insubstantial (Stutzman v. State [Tex. Cr. App.J 251 S. W. 812; Stutzman v. State [Tex. Cr. App.] 251 S. W. 813).

The Supreme Court of the United States has recently laid down .some very wholesome rules for the governance of District Judges in the matter of when they will assume the extraordinary jurisdiction here invoked to declare null and void the ordered processes of the state courts, with all of which I thoroughly agree, and I need only refer to that case for an expression of the general principles controlling here. Stanley P. Ashe, Warden, v. U. S. of America ex rel. Joseph Valotta, 46 S. Ct. 333, 70 L. Ed.-, decided March 15, 1926.

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

HUTCHESON, District Judge.

This petition was filed -by the clerk by order of the court and thereafter came on for inspection by me. It appearing from the petition that the only complaint made is to the form of the judgment, that under the Indeterminate Sentence Law of Texas (Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, article 865a) it-should have contained a maximum and a minimum provision rather than one indefinite term, and it further appearing from said petition that both of said sentences were appealed, and both affirmed as valid by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, it is apparent on the face of the petition that it is without merit, and should be denied) both because, if there was any error in the judgment it was an insubstantial and amendable error on appeal (see Alzalde v. State, 173 S. W. 298, 76 Tex. Cr. R. 169; Orange v. State, 173 S. W. 297, 76 Tex. Cr. R. 194), and because, the judgment having been affirmed as valid by the highest court of Texas, it cannot be considered, either that there was an error in fact in the judgment, or that such error was not insubstantial (Stutzman v. State [Tex. Cr. App.J 251 S. W. 812; Stutzman v. State [Tex. Cr. App.] 251 S. W. 813).

The Supreme Court of the United States has recently laid down .some very wholesome rules for the governance of District Judges in the matter of when they will assume the extraordinary jurisdiction here invoked to declare null and void the ordered processes of the state courts, with all of which I thoroughly agree, and I need only refer to that case for an expression of the general principles controlling here. Stanley P. Ashe, Warden, v. U. S. of America ex rel. Joseph Valotta, 46 S. Ct. 333, 70 L. Ed.-, decided March 15, 1926.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 F.2d 98, 1926 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-stutzman-txsd-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack