Martin v. United States

168 F.2d 1003, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2170
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided July 7, 1948·No. No. 5762·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment and sentence and issue a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant complains that he was not indicted for the offense for which he was sentenced and that counsel was not assigned him. It appears from the record of proceedings in the court below, however, that he was clearly informed in open court of the nature of the charge against him, which was violation of the motor vehicle theft act, and that he thereupon stated that he did not wish the court to appoint a lawyer for him and that he wished to waive indictment and plead guilty on an information charging the crime. The record leaves no doubt that he thoroughly understood what he was doing, that his rights were carefully explained to him and that he freely and voluntarily waived counsel and indictment. The application to vacate the judgment and sentence and issue a writ of habeas corpus was pioperly denied.

Affirmed.

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

Martin v. United States, 168 F.2d 1003, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2170 (4th Cir. 1948).

168 F.2d 1003 (Martin v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Malone v. Commonwealth
30 S.W.3d 180 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2000)
United States v. Rush
60 F.R.D. 211 (D. Minnesota, 1973)
King v. State
473 S.W.2d 43 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1971)
Cunningham v. Hayes
134 S.E.2d 271 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1964)
Rikard v. South Carolina State Hospital
202 F. Supp. 763 (W.D. South Carolina, 1962)
United States v. Maddux
20 F.R.D. 169 (D. Alaska, 1956)
Lipscomb v. United States
209 F.2d 831 (Eighth Circuit, 1954)
United States v. Walker
117 F. Supp. 503 (S.D. New York, 1953)