James Elmer Swift v. Commandant, United States Disciplinary Barracks

440 F.2d 1074, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10788
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedApril 13, 1971
Docket203-70_1
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 440 F.2d 1074 (James Elmer Swift v. Commandant, United States Disciplinary Barracks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
James Elmer Swift v. Commandant, United States Disciplinary Barracks, 440 F.2d 1074, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10788 (10th Cir. 1971).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Swift is an inmate in the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, having been convicted in 1965 by a military court of unpremeditated murder. The conviction was affirmed by a United States Air Force Board of Review and by the Court of Military Appeals. In 1968, Swift filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied. In 1970, appellant petitioned for a second habeas corpus writ. The petition alleged numerous constitutional infirmities in the court martial and also tacitly urged that under O’Callahan v. Parker, 395 U.S. 258, 89 S.Ct. 1683, 23 L.Ed.2d *1075 291 (1969), the military court had no jurisdiction.

Excepting the argument on jurisdiction, each contention presented in the second petition is a repetition of those previously advanced. The Order dismissing the original petition conclusively reflects that the same grounds were there determined adversely to Swift and that the prior determination was on the merits. No useful purpose would be served to again consider the alleged constitutional infirmities. 28 U.S.C. § 2244; Queen v. Page, 362 F.2d 543 (10th Cir. 1966).

The crime for which appellant stands convicted occurred in Germany. The act was committed in a hotel which was off the Air Force base and transpired while Swift was not in uniform and during off-duty hours. The jurisdictional argument is that O’Callahan is on all fours with the instant case so as to destroy the military court’s jurisdiction to try Swift. The identical issue here posed has been decided adversely to appellant in Hemphill v. Moseley (10th Cir. 1971).

Affirmed.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
440 F.2d 1074, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-elmer-swift-v-commandant-united-states-disciplinary-barracks-ca10-1971.