William E. Thoresen, III v. The Honorable William Goodwin, Petition of William E. Thoresen, III
This text of 404 F.2d 338 (William E. Thoresen, III v. The Honorable William Goodwin, Petition of William E. Thoresen, III) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ORDER
Petitioner is lawfully in custody charged with a federal crime and awaiting trial upon that charge. The validity of the Maine conviction may relate to the question of guilt of the federal charge but it does not affect the legality of petitioner’s being held to answer to the charge. Trial, and not habeas corpus, is the appropriate manner of resolving the issue of guilt of the federal crime and subordinate issues relating to elements of the crime. If the holding in Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109, 88 S.Ct. 258, 19 L.Ed.2d 319 (1967), has been erroneously applied by respondent that fact can be raised upon appeal from final judgment. An interlocutory ruling upon the question is not an appealable order and we decline to review the question at this time.
Leave to file petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
Viewing the action of respondent as a denial of a writ of habeas corpus, certificate of probable cause is denied,
These proceedings are dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
404 F.2d 338, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-e-thoresen-iii-v-the-honorable-william-goodwin-petition-of-ca9-1968.