Lynch v. Johnston

Ninth Circuit

Lynch v. Johnston

160 F.2d 950, 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 2717

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 19, 1947

DocketNo. 11478

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 160 F.2d 950 (Lynch v. Johnston) 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

Lynch v. Johnston, 160 F.2d 950, 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 2717 (9th Cir. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

BONE, Circuit Judge.

Appellant, while confined in a federal penitentiary at Lewisberg, Pennsylvania, killed another inmate. When brought to trial he was represented by appointed counsel, pleaded guilty to the crime of second-degree murder and was thereupon sentenced to a term of twenty years imprisonment. See United States v. Lynch, 3 Cir., 132 F.2d Ill, certified denied, 318 U.S. 777, 63 S.Ct. 831, 87 L.Ed. 1146. Being presently confined under that sentence in the penitentiary at Alcatraz Island, he petitioned the court below for a writ of habeas corpus. That court denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause, and appellant appealed.

Where, as here, no order to show cause is issued and no return is made or hearing had, the law requires that all of the allegations of fact contained in the petition be treated as true. Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U.S. 471, 473, 65 S.Ct. 363, 89 L.Ed. 398, House v. Mayo, 324 U.S. 42, 45, 65 S.Ct. 517, 89 L.Ed. 739; White v. Ragen, 324 U.S. 760, 763, 65 S.Ct. 978, 89 L.Ed. 1348. If a petition is clearly insufficient upon its face, it is proper to dismiss it. 28 U.S.C.A. § 455; Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. 275, 284, 61 S.Ct. 574, 85 L.Ed. 830; Dorsey v. Gill, App.D.C., 148 F.2d 857, 870.

The petition in this case is not drawn with desirable precision and clarity. However, “technical nicety” is not required in setting forth the allegations on which a petitioner relies to impeach the validity of his conviction. His petition plainly indicates that he desires to reveal facts which he was coerced from revealing which he claims would have been good defense to the charges of which he was convicted. We are of the view that enough is charged or implied therein to require a hearing on the petition.¹

The case is remanded with directions to grant petitioner a hearing on his petition.

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

BONE, Circuit Judge.

Appellant, while confined in a federal penitentiary at Lewisberg, Pennsylvania, killed another inmate. When brought to trial he was represented by appointed counsel, pleaded guilty to the crime of second-degree murder and was thereupon sentenced to a term of twenty years imprisonment. See United States v. Lynch, 3 Cir., 132 F.2d Ill, certified denied, 318 U.S. 777, 63 S.Ct. 831, 87 L.Ed. 1146. Being presently confined under that sentence in the penitentiary at Alcatraz Island, he petitioned the court below for a writ of habeas corpus. That court denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause, and appellant appealed.

Where, as here, no order to show cause is issued and no return is made or hearing had, the law requires that all of the allegations of fact contained in the petition be treated as true. Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U.S. 471, 473, 65 S.Ct. 363, 89 L.Ed. 398, House v. Mayo, 324 U.S. 42, 45, 65 S.Ct. 517, 89 L.Ed. 739; White v. Ragen, 324 U.S. 760, 763, 65 S.Ct. 978, 89 L.Ed. 1348. If a petition is clearly insufficient upon its face, it is proper to dismiss it. 28 U.S.C.A. § 455; Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. 275, 284, 61 S.Ct. 574, 85 L.Ed. 830; Dorsey v. Gill, App.D.C., 148 F.2d 857, 870.

The petition in this case is not drawn with desirable precision and clarity. However, “technical nicety” is not required in setting forth the allegations on which a petitioner relies to impeach the validity of his conviction. His petition plainly indicates that he desires to reveal facts which he was coerced from revealing which he claims would have been good defense to the charges of which he was convicted. We are of the view that enough is charged or implied therein to require a hearing on the petition.¹

The case is remanded with directions to grant petitioner a hearing on his petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 F.2d 950, 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 2717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lynch-v-johnston-ca9-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack