Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Albert Johnson v. Wayne K. Patterson, Warden, Colorado State Penitentiary, 367 F.2d 268, 10th Cir. (1966)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views1 page
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of a state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The prisoner alleged a disparity between his sentence and his co-defendant's sentence, but the district court determined after reviewing the state court record that the severe sentence was not arbitrarily imposed in violation of the Constitution. The appellate court did not consider new arguments raised regarding defects in the conviction and sentence, as those issues were not decided by the lower courts. The writ was properly denied and the judgment was affirmed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1966-10-11 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 367 F.2d 268 Docket: 8761

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of a state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The prisoner alleged a disparity between his sentence and his co-defendant's sentence, but the district court determined after reviewing the state court record that the severe sentence was not arbitrarily imposed in violation of the Constitution. The appellate court did not consider new arguments raised regarding defects in the conviction and sentence, as those issues were not decided by the lower courts. The writ was properly denied and the judgment was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    2 views1 page

    Albert Johnson v. Wayne K. Patterson, Warden, Colorado State Penitentiary, 367 F.2d 268, 10th Cir. (1966)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of a state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The prisoner alleged a disparity between his sentence and his co-defendant's sentence, but the district court determined after reviewing the state court record that the severe sentence was not arbitrarily imposed in violation of the Constitution. The appellate court did not consider new arguments raised regarding defects in the conviction and sentence, as those issues were not decided by the lower courts. The writ was properly denied and the judgment was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    367 F.

    2d 268

    Albert JOHNSON, Appellant,


    v.
    Wayne K. PATTERSON, Warden, Colorado State
    Penitentiary, Appellee.
    No. 8761.

    United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.


    October 11, 1966.

    Yale Huffman, Denver, Colo., for appellant.


    Robert C. Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E.
    Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., were with him on the brief), for appellee.
    Before LEWIS, BREITENSTEIN and HILL, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.

    Petitioner, a state prisoner, alleging the existence of a great disparity between


    the sentence he is now serving and the sentence imposed upon a co-defendant,
    sought issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court
    for the District of Colorado. The trial court, after comprehensive review of the
    state court record determined that petitioner's severe sentence had not been
    arbitrarily imposed so as to violate a federal constitutional right and denied the
    petition for the writ.

    No appellate claim is made that the judgment of the district court is faulty
    either upon the merits or upon jurisdictional grounds. Appellate counsel does
    assert that petitioner's conviction and sentence are suspect upon several grounds
    which have not been presented to the Colorado state courts and which were not
    decided by the federal district court. This court, of course, does not review
    arguments but limits its consideration to that which is decided in the court
    below.

    The writ was properly denied and the judgment is affirmed.

    You might also like