Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Johnson v. Aderhold

73 F.2d 102

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1934-10-24
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. In June, 1928, Matthew Johnson was sentenced on his pleas of guilty to indictments charging robbery under tho Code of the District of Columbia 1929, title 6, § 34, and to a third indictment charging assault with intent to commit robbery in violation of section 28 of the same title. The sentences imposed were ten years and eight years, respectively, on the first two indictments, and five years on the assault charge; the sentences to run consecutively in the order named. Ho appeals from an order denying his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. It is enough .to say, since the first sentence of ten years imposed has not expired, that tho application for habeas corpus was premature.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Johnson v. Aderhold. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
5 opinions
JOHNSON v. ADERHOLD,73 F.2d 102(5th Cir. 1934)
JOHNSON v. ADERHOLD, Warden.
No. 7341.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
October 24, 1934.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Georgia; E. Marvin Underwood, Judge.Page 103

Habeas corpus proceedings by Matthew Johnson against A.C. Aderhold, warden of the United States penitentiary, Atlanta, Ga. From a judgment denying the writ, petitioner appeals.

Affirmed.
Matthew Johnson, of Atlanta, Ga., in pro. per.

Lawrence S. Camp, U.S. Atty., and H.T. Nichols, Sp. Atty., both of Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Before BRYAN, FOSTER, and SIBLEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
In June, 1928, Matthew Johnson was sentenced on his pleas of guilty to indictments charging robbery under the Code of the District of Columbia 1929, title 6, § 34, and to a third indictment charging assault with intent to commit robbery in violation of section 28 of the same title. The sentences imposed were ten years and eight years, respectively, on the first two indictments, and five years on the assault charge; the sentences to run consecutively in the order named. He appeals from an order denying his petition for the writ of habeas corpus.

It is enough to say, since the first sentence of ten years imposed has not expired, that the application for habeas corpus was premature. The question of the validity of the other two sentences is not properly before us for consideration.

The judgment is affirmed.Page 171