Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
John Yodock v. United States
196 F.2d 1018
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1952-05-23
- Topic
- general
PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from the denial of the district court of a motion under Section 2255 of Title 28, U.S.C., to vacate judgment and sentence in a criminal case. The appellant urges that the court was without power to try and sentence him because he was brought to the trial in the Middle District of Pennsylvania in response to a writ of habeas corpus directed to the warden of the Eastern State Penitentiary in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. It may be conceded that the writ was improperly issued to a custodian outside the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The fact remains, however, that the defendant was actually produced in the Middle District for his trial.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed John Yodock v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 3 opinions
This is an appeal from the denial of the district court of a motion under Section 2255 of Title 28, U.S.C., to vacate judgment and sentence in a criminal case. The appellant urges that the court was without power to try and sentence him because he was brought to the trial in the Middle District of Pennsylvania in response to a writ of habeas corpus directed to the warden of the Eastern State Penitentiary in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. It may be conceded that the writ was improperly issued to a custodian outside the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The fact remains, however, that the defendant was actually produced in the Middle District for his trial. It is not shown that he was denied due process in the trial. The manner in which his presence was secured did not affect the power of the court to try him. Pettibone v. Nichols, 1906, 203 U.S. 192, 27 S.Ct. 111, 51 L.Ed. 148; Chandler v. United States, 1 Cir., 1948, 171 F.2d 921, 934, certiorari denied 336 U.S. 918, 69 S.Ct. 640, 93 L.Ed. 1081; Gillars v. United States, 1950, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 16, 182 F.2d 962, 972.
The order of the district court will be affirmed. 101 F.Supp. 480.