Summary
In Martin v. U.S. (1948), 4th Cir. 168 F.2d 1003 (certiorari denied, 335 U.S. 8720, the court per curiam held that an application to vacate a judgment and sentence and issue a writ of habeas corpus had been properly denied to the respondent who had been accused of violation of the motor vehicle theft act and had waived indictment and pleaded guilty on an information.
Summary of this case from Tuttle, Petr. v. State of MaineOpinion
No. 5762.
July 7, 1948.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of South Carolina, at Greenwood; Charles Cecil Wyche, Judge.
Proceedings by the United States of America against Robert S. Martin, wherein defendant, after he had waived his right to indictment by grand jury and consented to be charged with violation of the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 408, by way of information, was sentenced to custody of the Attorney General for a period of five years, and was placed in the United States penitentiary in Atlanta, Ga. From an order denying a motion to vacate judgment and sentence and issue writ of habeas corpus, 8 F.R.D. 89, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Robert S. Martin, pro se.
Walter H. Hood, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Greenville, S.C. (Oscar H. Doyle, U.S. Atty., of Anderson, S.C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges, and WEBB, District Judge.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment and sentence and issue a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant complains that he was not indicted for the offense for which he was sentenced and that counsel was not assigned him. It appears from the record of proceedings in the court below, however, that he was clearly informed in open court of the nature of the charge against him, which was violation of the motor vehicle theft act, and that he thereupon stated that he did not wish the court to appoint a lawyer for him and that he wished to waive indictment and plead guilty on an information charging the crime. The record leaves no doubt that he thoroughly understood what he was doing, that his rights were carefully explained to him and that he freely and voluntarily waived counsel and indictment. The application to vacate the judgment and sentence and issue a writ of habeas corpus was properly denied.
Affirmed.