Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

199 F.2d 268

Docket No. 6481.

Hobbs v. Swenson

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Oct. 6, 1952.

Decided Oct. 8, 1952.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1952-10-08

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently June 1962

15 federal appellate · 1 district ·

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On January 7, 1947 appellant pleaded guilty in a Maryland state court to a charge of robbery and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He contends that counsel were not appointed to advise him, that he was not allowed to present witnessess in his behalf and that he was not allowed to question the witnesses against him. Appellant has repeatedly made application for habeas corpus to the state courts which have been denied and the Supreme Court of the United States has denied certiorari. State ex rel. Hobbs v. Warden, [194] Md. [722], 70 A.2d 814 , Hobbs v. Warden, [197] Md. [629], 80 A.2d 38 , Id., 341 U.S. 936 , 71 S.Ct. 851 , 95 L.Ed. 1364 . It appears also that prior applications have been made to both United States Judges in the District of Maryland and have been denied by them. The application from the denial of which this appeal was taken presents no such unusual circumstances as would have warranted the District Judge in issuing a writ of habeas corpus in such situation. The application appears to be entirely without merit; but we are without jurisdiction to consider the appeal because there is no certificate of probable cause as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253 . Bernard v. Brady, Warden, 4 Cir., 164 F.2d 881 ; Berman v. Swenson, Warden, 4 Cir., 177 F.2d 717 ; Hansen v. Warden, 4 Cir., 198 F.2d 470 .” Hobbs v. Swenson, Warden, 4 Cir., 199 F.2d 268 .”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 206 F. Supp. 301 - Hobbs v. Pepersack

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Bernard v. Brady · Meredith v. John Deere Plow Co. · Berman v. Swenson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1952-10-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Joseph Hobbs, Jr., pro se.

¶2Ambrose T. Hartman, Sp. Asst. At'ty. Gen. of Maryland, (Hall Hammond, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, on brief), for appellee.

¶3Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SO-PER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. O-n January 7, 1947 appellant pleaded-guilty in a Maryland state court to a charge of robbery and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He contends that counsel were not appointed to advise him, that he was not allowed to present witnesses in his behalf and that he was not allowed to question the -witnesses against him. Appellant has repeatedly made application for habeas corpus to the state courts which have been denied and the Supreme Court of the United States .has denied certiorari. State ex rel. Hobbs v. Warden, Md., 70 A.2d 814, Hobbs v. Warden, Md., 80 A.2d 38, Id.,341 U.S. 936, 71 S.Ct. 851, 95 L.Ed. 1364. It appears also that prior applications have been made to both United States Judges in the District of Maryland and have been denied by them. The application from the denial of which this appeal was taken presents no- such unusual circumstances as would have warranted the District Judge in issuing a writ of habeas corpus in such situation. The application appears . to be entirely without merit; but we are without jurisdiction to consider the appeal because there is no certificate of probable cause as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253. Bernard v. Brady, Warden, 4 Cir., 164 F.2d 881; *269Berman v. Swenson, Warden, 4 Cir., 177 F.2d 717; Hansen v. Warden, 4 Cir., 198 F.2d 470.

¶6Appeal dismissed.

/199/f2d/268 · .json · Public domain