15 F.2d 377 - Van Meter v. Snook — 15 F.2d 377

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently January 1983

12 federal appellate ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶11. Habeas corpus <@=30(t).

¶2Alleged error of trial court in ruling on matter set up as defense is not subject to review on habeas corpus.

¶32. Habeas corpus <@=>30(l).

¶4If trial court’s ruling on matter set up as defense is erroneous, error will not render judgment of conviction a nullity as regards right to discharge on habeas corpus. - - -

¶5Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Georgia; Samuel H. Sibley, Judge.

¶6Habeas corpus by Edward Van Meter against John W. Snook, Warden of the United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Ga. From an order denying a discharge, petitioner appeals.

¶7Affirmed.

¶8Edward Van Meter, in pro. per.

¶9J. W. Henley, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.

¶10Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.

¶11PER CURIAM.

¶12This is an appeal from an order denying a discharge under a writ of habeas corpus. The attack on the judgment of conviction under which appellant was held was based on the action of the trial court in overruling a plea of former conviction; that court’s jurisdiction of the offense charged and of the appellant not being impeached.

¶13 [1,2] The ground of attack on the judgment being a mere asserted error of the trial court in ruling on- a matter set up as a defense, that action of the trial court is not subject to be reviewed on habeas corpus. Ex parte Bigelow, 113 U. S. 328, 5 S. Ct. 542, 28 L. Ed. 1005; In re Eckart, Petitioner, 166 U. S. 481, 17 S. Ct. 638, 41 L. Ed. 1085; 2-9 C. J. 45. If the attacked ruling was erroneous, the error did not have the effect of rendering the judgment of conviction a nullity.

¶14The order is affirmed.