SCOTT MCFARLANE, APPELLANT,
v.
COLONEL GUY DEYOUNG, COMMANDING OFFICER, UNITED STATES ARMY, PRESIDIO, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, APPELLEE
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 the factual distinctions between this case and Beaty v. Kenan were de minimis, and therefore the soldier's absence without authority did not justify denial of habeas corpus relief.
A soldier petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus after being charged with absence from duty without authority. The district court denied the petition,…
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 Habeas Corpus Petition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This appeal from a denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c) involves the obligations of a soldier in the United States Army for alleged absence from duty without proper authority, as set forth in Beaty v. Kenan, 420 F. 2d 55 (9th Cir. 1969).
The matter was determined by the district court with the assent of the parties, based upon the respondent’s return to an order to show cause. The return included all the records upon which the district court based its findings and conclusions. The case does not, therefore, involve the usual appellate review where deference must be given to the fact finding process of the trial courts. Costello v. Fazio, 256 F. 2d 903 (9th Cir. 1958); Brown v. Cowden Livestock Co., 187 F. 2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1951).
The district court determined that the case was factually distinguishable from Beaty. We hold that the distinctions cannot remove this case from Beaty.
The record reveals that on September 4, 1969, after petitioner reported for duty, his father was informed by the Army officer investigating the matter, that he, the officer, thought that the petitioner had made a reasonable effort to let the Army know where he was.
The respondent contends that petitioner’s lack of good faith is illustrated because (1) petitioner’s father kept a record of letters and telephone conversations of petitioner’s contacts with the Army, and (2) petitioner reported at the Presidio of San Francisco only two days before his discharge date. In Beaty no such records were kept and Beaty reported five weeks after his original termination date. The distinctions are de minimus.
The order denying the writ is vacated, the writ is granted, and the mandate ordered to be issued forthwith by the clerk.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Emma v. DeWitt C. Armstrong, III, 473 F.2d 656 (1st Cir. 1973)
Authorities Cited
- John Costello in Bankr. of Leonard Plumbing & Heating Supply, Inc. v. Fazio, 256 F.2d 903 (9th Cir. 1958)
- Brown v. Cowden Livestock Co., 187 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1951)
- Beaty v. Major General T. A. Kenan, 420 F.2d 55 (9th Cir. 1969)