Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

United States of America Ex Rel. Edward Gist v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, County of Philadelphia, William J. Banmiller, Warden

286 F.2d 245

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1961-01-19
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from the dismissal by the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. That court dismissed the appellant’s petition for habeas corpus. The basis of the application is that the appellant, accused of the crimes of murder, robbery and burglary, was committed to jail for an unreasonable time before he was brought to trial. He was later tried, convicted of first degree murder following which he was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States of America Ex Rel. Edward Gist v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, County of Philadelphia, William J. Banmiller, Warden. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
UNITED STATES v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,286 F.2d 245(3rd Cir. 1961)
UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Edward GIST, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, William J. Banmiller, Warden, et al.
No. 13333.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted January 12, 1961.
Decided January 19, 1961.
Edward Gist, pro se.

Charles L. Durham, Arlen Specter, Paul M. Chalfin, Victor H. Blanc, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and FORMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the dismissal by the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. That court dismissed the appellant's petition for habeas corpus. The basis of the application is that the appellant, accused of the crimes of murder, robbery and burglary, was committed to jail for an unreasonable time before he was brought to trial. He was later tried, convicted of first degree murder following which he was sentenced to life imprisonment.

It does not appear that the appellant was in any way injured by the delay in bringing him to trial. He, therefore, has no basis for a writ of habeas corpus. United States v. Holmes, 3 Cir., 1948,168 F.2d 888.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.