UNITED STATES EX REL. MONDER
v.
RAGEN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that claims not properly raised in a habeas corpus action, the constitutionality of the Illinois Habitual Criminal Act, and failure to exhaust state remedies are grounds for dismissal.
Petitioner was convicted of robbery and found to be a habitual criminal, sentenced to twenty years in prison. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Constitutional Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner was found guilty-of robbery and found to be a habitual criminal in August 1940, by the Criminal Court of Cook County, and by virtue of such conviction was sentenced to twenty years in the Illinois State Penitentiary where he is now confined. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the District Court. From an order dismissing his petition, petitioner appeals. The trial judge has signed a certificate of probable cause and we are allowing the presentation of the appeal in forma pauperis.
Petitioner raises in his petition such questions as lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, prejudice of the jury by his record of previous convictions, insufficiency of the indictment and others of like vein. Such contentions are obviously not properly raised in a habeas corpus action. Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19, 59 S.Ct. 442, 83 L.Ed. 455; Andrews v. Swartz, 156 U.S. 272, 15 S.Ct. 389, 39 L.Ed. 422.
Petitioner also asserts that the Illinois Habitual Criminal Act, Ill.Rev.Stat. 1945, c. 38, § 602, is in violation of the Constitution of the United States. The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. People v. Lawrence, 390 Ill. 499, 61 N.E. 2d 361; People v. Hanke, 389 Ill. 602, 60 N.E. 2d 395; Kelly v. People, 115 Ill. 583, 4 N.E. 644, 56 Am.Rep. 184. We must follow this construction. Whitten v. Bennett, 7 Cir., 141 F. 2d 295; United States v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 143 F. 2d 774.
It is also apparent that petitioner has failed to show an exhaustion of his state court remedies as required by White v. Ragen, 324 U.S. 760, 65 S.Ct. 978.
The order of the District Court is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Atwell v. State OF Ark., 426 F.2d 912 (8th Cir. 1970)
Authorities Cited
- White v. Ragen, 324 U.S. 760 (U.S. 1945)
- Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19 (U.S. 1939)
- Andrews v. Swartz, 156 U.S. 272 (U.S. 1895)
- United States ex rel. Foley v. Ragen, 143 F.2d 774 (7th Cir. 1944)
- Whitten v. Bennett, 141 F.2d 295 (7th Cir. 1944)