Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

387 F.2d 374

Docket No. 18026.

Henry Rogers v. George A. Kropp, Warden

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1968-01-12

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently August 1977

3 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“a plea to the information under Michigan law waives any irregularity in the complaint.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including United States ex rel. Penachio v. Kropp

Relies on Johnson v. Stevenson · In Re Reno

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1968-01-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Henry Rogers, in pro. per.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Stewart H. Freeman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing, Mich., for appellee.

Before EDWARDS, CELEBREZZE and PECK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

Appellant appeals from the denial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254, (Supp. II, 1965-66).

¶2

His petition claims that the signature of the complaining witness on the complaint in the state court statutory rape charge was forged. It also alleges illegal detention and coercion after arrest.

¶3

The District Judge denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus without hearing on the ground that if granted the writ would not serve to free appellant, since he was also at the time (he has since been paroled) under a consecutive sentence which was not attacked.

¶4

We affirm the judgment of the District Court, but on grounds different from those cited by the District Judge.

¶5

A plea to the information under Michigan law waives any irregularity in the complaint. In re Reno, 321 Mich. 497, 500-501, 32 N.W.2d 723, cert. denied, 335 U.S. 833, 69 S.Ct. 21, 93 L.Ed. 386 (1948). We perceive no federal constitutional deprivation in this rule.

¶6

There is no claim in appellant's petition that any coerced confession or statement was admitted in evidence against appellant at his state court trial.

¶7

Careful inspection of the petition for writ of habeas corpus shows a failure to allege any federal constitutional deprivation which occasions the present restrictions on appellant's freedom.

¶8

Affirmed.

/387/f2d/374 · .json · Public domain