From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thoresen v. Goodwin

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 10, 1968
404 F.2d 338 (9th Cir. 1968)

Opinion

No. 22977.

June 10, 1968.

John P. Frank, Lewis, Roca, Beauchamp Linton, Phoenix, Ariz., for appellant.

Cecil F. Poole, U.S. Atty., Jerrold M. Ladar, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Before MERRILL, KOELSCH and BROWNING, Circuit Judges.


ORDER


Petitioner is lawfully in custody charged with a federal crime and awaiting trial upon that charge. The validity of the Maine conviction may relate to the question of guilt of the federal charge but it does not affect the legality of petitioner's being held to answer to the charge. Trial, and not habeas corpus, is the appropriate manner of resolving the issue of guilt of the federal crime and subordinate issues relating to elements of the crime. If the holding in Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109, 88 S.Ct. 258, 19 L.Ed.2d 319 (1967), has been erroneously applied by respondent that fact can be raised upon appeal from final judgment. An interlocutory ruling upon the question is not an appealable order and we decline to review the question at this time.

Leave to file petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

Viewing the action of respondent as a denial of a writ of habeas corpus, certificate of probable cause is denied.

These proceedings are dismissed.


Summaries of

Thoresen v. Goodwin

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 10, 1968
404 F.2d 338 (9th Cir. 1968)
Case details for

Thoresen v. Goodwin

Case Details

Full title:William E. THORESEN, III, Petitioner, v. The Honorable William GOODWIN…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 10, 1968

Citations

404 F.2d 338 (9th Cir. 1968)

Citing Cases

Alvarez-Caceres v. Kline

aims by presenting them to the trial court and on direct appeal before he can assert them in a collateral…