Wyatt Jennings v. T. Wade Markley, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Terre Haute, Indiana

Seventh Circuit

Wyatt Jennings v. T. Wade Markley, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Terre Haute, Indiana

290 F.2d 892, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4277

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedJune 7, 1961

Docket13199

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 290 F.2d 892 (Wyatt Jennings v. T. Wade Markley, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Terre Haute, Indiana) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wyatt Jennings v. T. Wade Markley, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Terre Haute, Indiana, 290 F.2d 892, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4277 (7th Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge.

Wyatt Jennings, petitioner, has appealed from an order of the district court dismissing his petition for writ of ha-beas corpus, to which T. Wade Mark-ley, warden of the United States penitentiary, Terre Haute, Indiana, respondent, had filed a return which was un-traversed. The record shows that the return contained a full recital of the proceedings which resulted in petitioner’s incarceration in said penitentiary.

It appears that petitioner was enlisted in the regular army of the United States and was serving in Korea. He was tried by a United States military court-martial for murder and assault in time of peace and, his conviction and sentence to confinement at hard labor for 30 years having been approved upon review in the manner provided by the law of the United States, and the provisions of Article 71(c) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C.A. § 871(c), having been complied with, the sentence was ordered into execution.

Petitioner attacks the jurisdiction of the court-martial to try him for the offenses for which he was charged, because “he was assigned to the United Nations force” and his case should have been referred “to the International Court of Justice”, the “Republic of Korea was a Sovereign State” and the “Civil Court of Korea was open for Capital Crimes”, and the “United States Army * * * could not supersede the jurisdiction of the Sovereign of Korea on Agreements under the United Nations Charter”.

We have carefully considered petitioner’s arguments and we believe they have been fully answered by the learned opinion of the district judge, Jennings v. Markley, D.C., 186 F.Supp. 611. We adopt the reasoning of that opinion and reject petitioner’s contentions as unsound.

Accordingly we affirm the order of the district court.

Affirmed

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

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge.

Wyatt Jennings, petitioner, has appealed from an order of the district court dismissing his petition for writ of ha-beas corpus, to which T. Wade Mark-ley, warden of the United States penitentiary, Terre Haute, Indiana, respondent, had filed a return which was un-traversed. The record shows that the return contained a full recital of the proceedings which resulted in petitioner’s incarceration in said penitentiary.

It appears that petitioner was enlisted in the regular army of the United States and was serving in Korea. He was tried by a United States military court-martial for murder and assault in time of peace and, his conviction and sentence to confinement at hard labor for 30 years having been approved upon review in the manner provided by the law of the United States, and the provisions of Article 71(c) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C.A. § 871(c), having been complied with, the sentence was ordered into execution.

Petitioner attacks the jurisdiction of the court-martial to try him for the offenses for which he was charged, because “he was assigned to the United Nations force” and his case should have been referred “to the International Court of Justice”, the “Republic of Korea was a Sovereign State” and the “Civil Court of Korea was open for Capital Crimes”, and the “United States Army * * * could not supersede the jurisdiction of the Sovereign of Korea on Agreements under the United Nations Charter”.

We have carefully considered petitioner’s arguments and we believe they have been fully answered by the learned opinion of the district judge, Jennings v. Markley, D.C., 186 F.Supp. 611. We adopt the reasoning of that opinion and reject petitioner’s contentions as unsound.

Accordingly we affirm the order of the district court.

Affirmed

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 F.2d 892, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wyatt-jennings-v-t-wade-markley-warden-united-states-penitentiary-ca7-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack