Williams v. Swope, Warden

Ninth Circuit

Williams v. Swope, Warden

193 F.2d 175

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 28, 1951

Docket12923_1

StatusPublished

This text of 193 F.2d 175 (Williams v. Swope, Warden) 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.

Bluebook

Williams v. Swope, Warden, 193 F.2d 175 (9th Cir. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing appellant’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, the court holding that appellant had not maintained his burden of proof that the judgment imposed by the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas was illegal.

We agree with the decision of the court below that appellant had not been coerced into pleading guilty and that the local court’s summarization of the indictment was sufficient. 1

Appellant concedes that if he is unable to maintain his application’s allegations concerning the trial of the Arkansas case, he is presently legally confined by the Warden and that he is not in a position to urge that another sentence, imposed by the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, is invalid.

The judgment is affirmed.

1

. Cf. Williams v. United States, 8 Cir., 177 F.2d 97.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing appellant’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, the court holding that appellant had not maintained his burden of proof that the judgment imposed by the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas was illegal.

We agree with the decision of the court below that appellant had not been coerced into pleading guilty and that the local court’s summarization of the indictment was sufficient. 1

Appellant concedes that if he is unable to maintain his application’s allegations concerning the trial of the Arkansas case, he is presently legally confined by the Warden and that he is not in a position to urge that another sentence, imposed by the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, is invalid.

The judgment is affirmed.

1

. Cf. Williams v. United States, 8 Cir., 177 F.2d 97.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 F.2d 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-swope-warden-ca9-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack