Thomson v. Huff

149 F.2d 842, 80 U.S. App. D.C. 165, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2698
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedJune 18, 1945
DocketNo. 8762
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 149 F.2d 842 (Thomson 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
Thomson v. Huff, 149 F.2d 842, 80 U.S. App. D.C. 165, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2698 (D.C. Cir. 1945).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court which allowed petitioner to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prepayment of costs, but denied the writ.

Appellant, who is serving a prison term on five separate counts of housebreaking and larceny, alleges that he is unlawfully confined because he was incompetently represented by counsel who failed to show sufficient interest in his case and who advised him to plead guilty to the five charges be[843]*843cause he “had already arranged for a light sentence of from two to three years on each case, the sentences to run concurrently.” He actually received sentences of three to five years on each charge, which run consecutively.

Appellant also alleges a number of alibi defenses.

The petition is clearly without merit and the trial court’s action in refusing to issue the writ must be affirmed.1 There is no allegation that appellant misunderstood the nature of the charges, did not knowingly plead guilty, or was coerced by judge or prosecutor to enter the plea. “A mere disappointed expectation of great leniency does not vitiate a plea.” 2

The plea having been competently and voluntarily made, there can, of course, be no review of the merits of appellant’s defenses.

Affirmed.

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

Related

State Ex Rel. Richmond v. Henderson
439 S.W.2d 263 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1969)
Fullmer v. Meacham
387 P.2d 1007 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1964)
United States Ex Rel. Wilkins v. Banmiller
205 F. Supp. 123 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1962)
Application of Atchley
169 F. Supp. 313 (N.D. California, 1958)
Grinage v. Humphrey
79 F. Supp. 10 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
149 F.2d 842, 80 U.S. App. D.C. 165, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomson-v-huff-cadc-1945.