Lawrence E. Wallace v. Robert A. Heinze, Warden, California State Prison, Represa, California

Ninth Circuit

Lawrence E. Wallace v. Robert A. Heinze, Warden, California State Prison, Represa, California

351 F.2d 39

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 15, 1965

Docket19850_1

StatusPublished

Cited by34 cases

This text of 351 F.2d 39 (Lawrence E. Wallace v. Robert A. Heinze, Warden, California State Prison, Represa, California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lawrence E. Wallace v. Robert A. Heinze, Warden, California State Prison, Represa, California, 351 F.2d 39 (9th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by Lawrence E. Wallace, a prisoner incarcerated in the Cali-forma State Penitentiary at Represa, from the judgment of the United States District Court dismissing his application for a writ of habeas corpus to effect his discharge from custody.

Appellant was not entitled to the writ as if by default, because the respondent state did not file its return to the order to show cause within the time specified by the statute. 1 Here, it appears that the District Court granted respondent additional time to do so, and we think the court possessed this inherent power. Granted that dispatch is the keynote in all phases of habeas corpus and that the statutory limitation of time is clearly directed to that end, there are instances — and this appears to be one of them — where more time is required to make a full and complete return. It is readily apparent that a full and complete return made in the first instance will in fact hasten a final determination on the merits.

Nor can appellant be heard to urge that the evidence upon which the criminal charge was based was obtained by the prosecution upon an unreasonable search. It appears from the return that, at his arraignment in the State court, the defendant, appearing in person and with counsel, entered his plea of guilty to the charge against him. He was thereupon adjudged guilty and sentence was pronounced. “The conviction and sentence which follow a plea of guilty are based solely and entirely upon said plea and not upon any evidence which may have been improperly acquired by the prosecuting authorities.” Thomas v. United States, 290 F.2d 696-697 (9th Cir. 1961).

This conclusion renders unnecessary a consideration of appellant’s remaining points.

The judgment is affirmed.

1

. Issuance of writ; return; hearing; decision

* * #

The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained. It shall be returned within three days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is allowed.

* * *

28 U.S.O. § 2243.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by Lawrence E. Wallace, a prisoner incarcerated in the Cali-forma State Penitentiary at Represa, from the judgment of the United States District Court dismissing his application for a writ of habeas corpus to effect his discharge from custody.

Appellant was not entitled to the writ as if by default, because the respondent state did not file its return to the order to show cause within the time specified by the statute. 1 Here, it appears that the District Court granted respondent additional time to do so, and we think the court possessed this inherent power. Granted that dispatch is the keynote in all phases of habeas corpus and that the statutory limitation of time is clearly directed to that end, there are instances — and this appears to be one of them — where more time is required to make a full and complete return. It is readily apparent that a full and complete return made in the first instance will in fact hasten a final determination on the merits.

Nor can appellant be heard to urge that the evidence upon which the criminal charge was based was obtained by the prosecution upon an unreasonable search. It appears from the return that, at his arraignment in the State court, the defendant, appearing in person and with counsel, entered his plea of guilty to the charge against him. He was thereupon adjudged guilty and sentence was pronounced. “The conviction and sentence which follow a plea of guilty are based solely and entirely upon said plea and not upon any evidence which may have been improperly acquired by the prosecuting authorities.” Thomas v. United States, 290 F.2d 696-697 (9th Cir. 1961).

This conclusion renders unnecessary a consideration of appellant’s remaining points.

The judgment is affirmed.

1

. Issuance of writ; return; hearing; decision

* * #

The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained. It shall be returned within three days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is allowed.

* * *

28 U.S.O. § 2243.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

351 F.2d 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-e-wallace-v-robert-a-heinze-warden-california-state-prison-ca9-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack