State ex rel. Elwood v. Mahoney

E.D. Washington

State ex rel. Elwood v. Mahoney

32 F. Supp. 660, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3167

DecidedApril 13, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 32 F. Supp. 660 (State ex rel. Elwood v. Mahoney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Elwood v. Mahoney, 32 F. Supp. 660, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3167 (E.D. Wash. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

NETERER, District Judge.

Petitioner swears that he is a pauper and requests filing of his petition without fee. Let it be filed that record of this proceeding be preserved.

He prays a writ of habeas corpus directing the Warden of the State Penitentiary to produce petitioner before this Court to inquire into alleged illegal confinement, and that upon hearing he be discharged. This prayer must be denied.

The petitioner states that on February 20th, 1937, he was convicted by a “duly impaneled jury for the crime of burglary in the second degree;” that on March 13, 1937, he was brought before the trial Judge; that upon motion of the prosecuting attorney imposition of sentence was deferred, petitioner having requested through his attorney that judgment be entered and sentence imposed upon the verdict of the jury; that on August 5th, following, imposition of sentence was imposed by another Judge of the same Cóurt; that more than 90 days had elapsed from the time of his conviction and his demand that sentence be imposed; that section 20, Art 4 of the State Constitution provides: “every [661]*661case submitted to a judge of a superior court for his decision shall be decided * * within ninety days from the submission thereof;” that imposition of the sentence at the time was without the “due process” clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which provides : “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Petitioner also says “the Supreme Court of the State of Washington denied Relator his inherent constitutional right and privilege to file for a writ of habeas corpus in Forma Pauperis in this matter.”

Not even intimating that Sec. 20, Art. 4, supra, has application, it is obvious that this Court is without jurisdiction. The petitioner, if a right was violated by a State Court imposing sentence, it was his right and duty to appeal to the Supreme Court of the State, and if he felt the Supreme Court of the State denied him a right given him by the Constitution of the United States, he had the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. He was represented by his attorney at the time of the act of the State Court complained of, and may not now seek relief from this Court in the nature of appeal from the orders of the State Trial Court. State of Minnesota ex rel. Charles Edwin Pearson app. v. Probate Court of Ramsey County, Minnesota et al., 60 S.Ct. 523, 84 L.Ed. -, Feb. 26, 1940.

This Court is without jurisdiction.

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

NETERER, District Judge.

Petitioner swears that he is a pauper and requests filing of his petition without fee. Let it be filed that record of this proceeding be preserved.

He prays a writ of habeas corpus directing the Warden of the State Penitentiary to produce petitioner before this Court to inquire into alleged illegal confinement, and that upon hearing he be discharged. This prayer must be denied.

The petitioner states that on February 20th, 1937, he was convicted by a “duly impaneled jury for the crime of burglary in the second degree;” that on March 13, 1937, he was brought before the trial Judge; that upon motion of the prosecuting attorney imposition of sentence was deferred, petitioner having requested through his attorney that judgment be entered and sentence imposed upon the verdict of the jury; that on August 5th, following, imposition of sentence was imposed by another Judge of the same Cóurt; that more than 90 days had elapsed from the time of his conviction and his demand that sentence be imposed; that section 20, Art 4 of the State Constitution provides: “every [661]*661case submitted to a judge of a superior court for his decision shall be decided * * within ninety days from the submission thereof;” that imposition of the sentence at the time was without the “due process” clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which provides : “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Petitioner also says “the Supreme Court of the State of Washington denied Relator his inherent constitutional right and privilege to file for a writ of habeas corpus in Forma Pauperis in this matter.”

Not even intimating that Sec. 20, Art. 4, supra, has application, it is obvious that this Court is without jurisdiction. The petitioner, if a right was violated by a State Court imposing sentence, it was his right and duty to appeal to the Supreme Court of the State, and if he felt the Supreme Court of the State denied him a right given him by the Constitution of the United States, he had the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. He was represented by his attorney at the time of the act of the State Court complained of, and may not now seek relief from this Court in the nature of appeal from the orders of the State Trial Court. State of Minnesota ex rel. Charles Edwin Pearson app. v. Probate Court of Ramsey County, Minnesota et al., 60 S.Ct. 523, 84 L.Ed. -, Feb. 26, 1940.

This Court is without jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 F. Supp. 660, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-elwood-v-mahoney-waed-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack