Sheehan v. Huff

D.C. Circuit

Sheehan v. Huff

142 F.2d 81, 78 U.S. App. D.C. 391, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3258

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 13, 1944

DocketNo. 8542

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 142 F.2d 81 (Sheehan v. Huff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sheehan v. Huff, 142 F.2d 81, 78 U.S. App. D.C. 391, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3258 (D.C. Cir. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant is serving a sentence for robbery imposed in the District of Columbia. This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant alleges (1) that prior to his trial he was brought from Virginia to the District of Columbia without extradition proceedings in spite of his protest and his unwillingness to waive extradition, and (2) that the court below denied the petition for habeas corpus without appointing counsel for petitioner.

Counsel for petitioner, appointed by this court to represent him on appeal, has filed a persuasive brief. It admits that the Supreme Court has decided that jurisdiction in a criminal case is not impaired by the fact that the accused was brought before the court in an unlawful manner, but urges these decisions should not be followed. We believe, however, that the question is so well settled that it cannot be reopened here. Mahon v. Justice, 1888, 127 U.S. 700, 8 S.Ct. 1204, 32 L.Ed. 283; Lascelles v. Georgia, 1893, 148 U.S. 537, 13 S.Ct. 687, 37 L.Ed. 549; Pettibone v. Nichols, 1906, 203 U.S. 192, 27 S.Ct. 111, 51 L.Ed. 148, 7 Ann.Cas. 1047.

The failure to appoint an attorney in the court below was not error because under these decisions the petition presents no substantial question.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant is serving a sentence for robbery imposed in the District of Columbia. This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant alleges (1) that prior to his trial he was brought from Virginia to the District of Columbia without extradition proceedings in spite of his protest and his unwillingness to waive extradition, and (2) that the court below denied the petition for habeas corpus without appointing counsel for petitioner.

Counsel for petitioner, appointed by this court to represent him on appeal, has filed a persuasive brief. It admits that the Supreme Court has decided that jurisdiction in a criminal case is not impaired by the fact that the accused was brought before the court in an unlawful manner, but urges these decisions should not be followed. We believe, however, that the question is so well settled that it cannot be reopened here. Mahon v. Justice, 1888, 127 U.S. 700, 8 S.Ct. 1204, 32 L.Ed. 283; Lascelles v. Georgia, 1893, 148 U.S. 537, 13 S.Ct. 687, 37 L.Ed. 549; Pettibone v. Nichols, 1906, 203 U.S. 192, 27 S.Ct. 111, 51 L.Ed. 148, 7 Ann.Cas. 1047.

The failure to appoint an attorney in the court below was not error because under these decisions the petition presents no substantial question.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 F.2d 81, 78 U.S. App. D.C. 391, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheehan-v-huff-cadc-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack