Crockett

Crockett v. United States

Good Law
125 F.2d 547·1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 4417
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 20, 1942No. 9894California2,222 words

Opinion

Concurring Opinion

Stephens, J.

(concurring).

Although the petition lacks craftsmanship and is incorrectly labeled “A Motion To Correct A Judgment” there is no mistaking the petitioner’s intention. He alleges many times that the judgment upon which he was committed to the penitentiary is void and I think that question was before the trial court. The only correction possible for a void judgment in a criminal case is to set it aside.

Whether the petition is in effect a petition for the issuance of the writ of Plabeas Corpus or for the writ of coram *549 nobis is not of first importance notwithstanding the former is in the nature of a civil proceeding and issues independently of any other proceeding while the latter issues out of a parent proceeding.

In the light of this court’s opinions and decisions in Robinson v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 118 F.2d 998 ; Crockett v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 109 F.2d 444 , and Waley v. Johnston, 9 Cir., December 20, 1941, 124 F. 2d 587 , I concur in the affirmance of the judgment although I do not want to be understood as approving either of them.

Lead Opinion

Denman, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court denying a motion entitled “The Petitioner’s Verified Motion for Correction of Sentence.” The pleading is inartificially drawn. Among its prayers it asks as in habeas corpus “that he be forthwith brought before this Honorable Court.” In effect, it seeks a habeas corpus proceeding in which petitioner presents issues which also would be considered under a writ coram nobis. See Robinson v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 118 F.2d 998 . “A petition for a writ of habeas corpus ought not to be scrutinized with technical nicety. Even if it is insufficient in substance it may be amended in the interest of justice.” Holiday v. Johnston, 313 U.S. 342, 350 , 61 S.Ct. 1015 , 85 L.Ed. 1392 . Here no amendment is needed to make clear the essence of the claim of wrong done the petitioner or his right to present it in a habeas corpus proceeding. Smith v. O’Grady, 312 U.S. 329 , 61 S.Ct. 572 , 85 L.Ed. 859 ..

*548 The petition claims that a judgment and sentence for twenty-five years’ imprisonment for the crime of assaulting a Postmaster with intent to rob, steal and purloin mail matters in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 320 , 18 U.S.C.A. § 320 , are void (a)…

Dissenting Opinion

Mathews, J.

(dissenting).

On January 6, 1937, in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California, appellant was indicted for assaulting a postmaster with intent to rob, steal and purloin mail matter, in violation of § 197 of the Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C.A. § 320 . On April 8, 1937, appellant was arraigned, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to be imprisoned for 25 years. The Attorney General designated as the place of appellant’s confinement the United States penitentiary at McNeil Island, Washington. Thence, by order of the Attorney General, appellant was removed to the United States penitentiary at Alcatraz, California, at which place appellant has ever since been and is now confined.

On June 22, 1939, appellant petitioned the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California for a writ of habeas corpus. On June 29, 1939, that court entered an order denying the petition. We affirmed the order on January 8, 1940. Crockett v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 109 F.2d 444 .

On June 5, 1941, appellant petitioned the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California for leave to file a motion in the criminal case — the case in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.