U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1945

Thomson v. Huff

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided June 18, 1945 · Arnold, Edgerton, Groner

149 F.2d 842; 80 U.S. App. D.C. 165; 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2698 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Emmett Leo Sheehan, of Washington, D. C. (appointed by this Court), for appellant., Mr. John C. Conliff, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, of Washington, D. C, with whom Mr. Edward M. Curran, United States Attorney, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee., Mr. Charles B. Murray, Assistant United States Attorney, of Washington, D. G, also entered an appearance for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Application of Atchley (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1958)
State Ex Rel. Richmond v. Henderson (Tenn. 1969)
Fullmer v. Meacham (Wyo. 1964)
United States Ex Rel. Wilkins v. Banmiller (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1962)
Grinage v. Humphrey (District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania 1948)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court which allowed petitioner to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prepayment of costs, but denied the writ.

Appellant, who is serving a prison term on five separate counts of housebreaking and larceny, alleges that he is unlawfully confined because he was incompetently represented by counsel who failed to show sufficient interest in his case and who advised him to plead guilty to the five charges be*843cause he “had already arranged for a light sentence of from two to three years on each case, the sentences to run concurrently.” He actually received sentences of three to five years on each charge, which run consecutively.

Appellant also alleges a number of alibi defenses.

The petition is clearly without merit and the trial court’s action in refusing to issue the writ must be affirmed.1 There is no allegation that appellant misunderstood the nature of the charges, did not knowingly plead guilty, or was coerced by judge or prosecutor to enter the plea. “A mere disappointed expectation of great leniency does not vitiate a plea.” 2

The plea having been competently and voluntarily made, there can, of course, be no review of the merits of appellant’s defenses.

Affirmed.

Diggs v. Welch, 1945, — U.S.App.D.C. —, 148 F.2d 667; Dorsey v. Gill, 1945, — U.S.App.D.C. —, 148 F.2d 857.

Monroe v. Huff, 1944, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 246, 145 F.2d 249; Dorsey v. Gill, supra.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.