Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Allen v. United States
162 F.2d 193
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1947-06-09
- Topic
- general
PER CURIAM. The appellant was apprehended, having a quantity of morphine in his possession, and was indicted for violation of section 1 of the Harrison Narcotic Law as amended, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 2553, and for violation of the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act, 21 U.S.C.A. § 174. He pleaded guilty on October 19, 1939, was sentenced to pay $1,000 on each count, and to serve five years on the first count and ten years on the second count of the indictment, the sentences to run consecutively. The entire sentence was suspended, and appellant was placed on probation for a period of five years.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Allen v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 11 opinions
ALLEN v. UNITED STATES,162 F.2d 193(6th Cir. 1947)
ALLEN v. UNITED STATES.
No. 10396.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 9, 1947.
Page 194
John H. Allen was sentenced on his plea of guilty under indictment charging violation of the Harrison Narcotic Law and the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act. While in confinement in the Federal Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, John H. Allen filed a petition called "Judgment to set aside or vacate sentence". The District Court dismissed the petition, and John H. Allen appeals.
Case remanded with instructions.
Appellee not represented.
Before SIMONS, ALLEN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
While confined in the Federal Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, appellant filed a petition called "Judgment to set aside or vacate sentence." The District Court treated this as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and dismissed it upon the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus directed to the Warden of the Federal Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas.
Appellant's counsel, appointed by the court, concedes that if the petition be considered an application for a writ of habeas corpus, this judgment is correct. Jones v. Biddle, 8 Cir.,131 F.2d 853, certiorari denied,318 U.S. 784,63 S.Ct. 856,87 L.Ed. 1152. But it is contended that the appellant urges he was insane at the time of entering his plea of guilty, and that his application should be considered as a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The facts as stated in appellant's brief are not controverted nor is the legal proposition advanced opposed by the United States Attorney. In such cases the writ of error coram nobis is the writ to be invoked. Robinson v. Johnston, Warden, 9 Cir.,118 F.2d 998. Its purpose is to bring to the attention of the court some fact unknown to the court, which if known would have resulted in a different judgment. Cf. United States v. Mayer,235 U.S. 55,67,68,35 S.Ct. 16,59 L.Ed. 129.
Appellant's contention that he was insane at the time of entering his plea of guilty is supported by the contents of his application, which is confused in expression, and concludes with a request for the court's help "in securing certain x-ray pictures taken of my head, which are now in possession of Dr. Morrison, Chief Medical Officer in Charge of the United States Hospital at Leavenworth, Kansas Federal Penitentiary. And every picture taken at the United States Public Health Service Hospital, Lexington, Ky."
We think this is a case in which the court should construe the application liberally in the interest of substantial justice. In such cases the ordinary rule excludingPage 195consideration of facts not presented to the trial court should not be applied. United States v. Steese, 3 Cir.,144 F.2d 439.
The case is remanded to the District Court with instruction to receive evidence in support of appellant's contention that at the time of entry of his plea of guilty he was incapable of realizing the significance of his act.Page 196