Sullivan v. Hunter

Tenth Circuit

Sullivan v. Hunter

141 F.2d 7, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3583

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 18, 1944

DocketNo. 2854

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 141 F.2d 7 (Sullivan v. Hunter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sullivan v. Hunter, 141 F.2d 7, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3583 (10th Cir. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order discharging a writ of habeas corpus.

An indictment was returned against Sullivan, the petitioner, in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. It contained two counts. The first charged a violation of 18 U.S.C. A. § 315, and the second a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 82.

Before arraignment on the indictment, the District Judge asked petitioner if he desired the court to appoint counsel to represent him. The petitioner replied in the negative. The indictment was then read to petitioner and he pleaded guilty to both counts.

As grounds for the writ, petitioner alleged that he was forced to sign a confession admitting the offenses later charged in the indictment; that he was thereafter induced by intimidation, threats, and coercion to enter pleas of guilty to both counts of the indictment; that he requested the appointment of counsel to represent' him and that the request was denied. After a hearing, the trial court found that the petitioner was not induced by threats, intimidation, or coercion, either to make a confession or enter pleas of guilty; that he was not denied counsel; and that he voluntarily entered pleas of guilty. The findings are not clearly erroneous.¹ On the contrary, they are fully supported by evidence.

The order is affirmed.

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

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order discharging a writ of habeas corpus.

An indictment was returned against Sullivan, the petitioner, in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. It contained two counts. The first charged a violation of 18 U.S.C. A. § 315, and the second a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 82.

Before arraignment on the indictment, the District Judge asked petitioner if he desired the court to appoint counsel to represent him. The petitioner replied in the negative. The indictment was then read to petitioner and he pleaded guilty to both counts.

As grounds for the writ, petitioner alleged that he was forced to sign a confession admitting the offenses later charged in the indictment; that he was thereafter induced by intimidation, threats, and coercion to enter pleas of guilty to both counts of the indictment; that he requested the appointment of counsel to represent' him and that the request was denied. After a hearing, the trial court found that the petitioner was not induced by threats, intimidation, or coercion, either to make a confession or enter pleas of guilty; that he was not denied counsel; and that he voluntarily entered pleas of guilty. The findings are not clearly erroneous.¹ On the contrary, they are fully supported by evidence.

The order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 F.2d 7, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-hunter-ca10-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack