John Yodock v. United States

Third Circuit

John Yodock v. United States

196 F.2d 1018, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2564

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 23, 1952

Docket10693

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 196 F.2d 1018 (John Yodock v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John Yodock v. United States, 196 F.2d 1018, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2564 (3d Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the denial of the district court of a motion under Section 2255 of Title 28, U.S.C., to vacate judgment and sentence in a criminal case. The appellant urges that the court was without power to try and sentence him because he was brought to the trial in the Middle District of Pennsylvania in response to a writ of habeas corpus directed to the warden of the Eastern State Penitentiary in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. It may be conceded that the writ was improperly issued to a custodian outside the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The fact remains, however, that the defendant was actually produced in the Middle District for his trial. It is not shown that he was denied due process in the trial. The manner in which his presence was secured did not affect the power of the court to try him. Pettibone v. Nichols, 1906, 203 U.S. 192, 27 S.Ct. 111, 51 L.Ed. 148; Chandler v. United States, 1 Cir., 1948, 171 F.2d 921, 934, certiorari denied 336 U.S. 918, 69 S.Ct. 640, 93 L.Ed. 1081; Gillars v. United States, 1950, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 16, 182 F.2d 962, 972.

The order of the district court will be affirmed. 101 F.Supp. 480.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the denial of the district court of a motion under Section 2255 of Title 28, U.S.C., to vacate judgment and sentence in a criminal case. The appellant urges that the court was without power to try and sentence him because he was brought to the trial in the Middle District of Pennsylvania in response to a writ of habeas corpus directed to the warden of the Eastern State Penitentiary in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. It may be conceded that the writ was improperly issued to a custodian outside the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The fact remains, however, that the defendant was actually produced in the Middle District for his trial. It is not shown that he was denied due process in the trial. The manner in which his presence was secured did not affect the power of the court to try him. Pettibone v. Nichols, 1906, 203 U.S. 192, 27 S.Ct. 111, 51 L.Ed. 148; Chandler v. United States, 1 Cir., 1948, 171 F.2d 921, 934, certiorari denied 336 U.S. 918, 69 S.Ct. 640, 93 L.Ed. 1081; Gillars v. United States, 1950, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 16, 182 F.2d 962, 972.

The order of the district court will be affirmed. 101 F.Supp. 480.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 F.2d 1018, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-yodock-v-united-states-ca3-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack