Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    UNITED STATES of America Ex Rel. Earl A. BROGAN v. Frank G. MARTIN, Warden, Eastern State Penitentiary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The relator, Earl A. Brogan, appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the district court. Brogan was convicted of armed robbery in state court and sentenced to prison. He did not appeal his conviction but later filed a habeas corpus petition in state court, which was dismissed and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal. In his current petition, Brogan contends the evidence at his trial did not establish he robbed the individual named in the indictment, constituting a due process violation. However, the court found this argument challenges the sufficiency of evidence, not the essential fairness of the trial, and cannot be raised via habeas corpus as a substitute for appeal. The district court's denial of the petition was affirmed

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    UNITED STATES of America Ex Rel. Earl A. BROGAN v. Frank G. MARTIN, Warden, Eastern State Penitentiary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    The relator, Earl A. Brogan, appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the district court. Brogan was convicted of armed robbery in state court and sentenced to prison. He did not appeal his conviction but later filed a habeas corpus petition in state court, which was dismissed and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal. In his current petition, Brogan contends the evidence at his trial did not establish he robbed the individual named in the indictment, constituting a due process violation. However, the court found this argument challenges the sufficiency of evidence, not the essential fairness of the trial, and cannot be raised via habeas corpus as a substitute for appeal. The district court's denial of the petition was affirmed

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1956-11-19 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 238 F.2d 236 Docket: 12028_1

    Original Title

    United States of America Ex Rel. Earl A. Brogan v. Frank G. Martin, Warden, Eastern State Penitentiary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 238 F.2d 236, 3rd Cir. (1956)

    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 relator, Earl A. Brogan, appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the district court. Brogan was convicted of armed robbery in state court and sentenced to prison. He did not appeal his conviction but later filed a habeas corpus petition in state court, which was dismissed and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal. In his current petition, Brogan contends the evidence at his trial did not establish he robbed the individual named in the indictment, constituting a due process violation. However, the court found this argument challenges the sufficiency of evidence, not the essential fairness of the trial, and cannot be raised via habeas corpus as a substitute for appeal. The district court's denial of the petition was affirmed

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    4 views2 pages

    UNITED STATES of America Ex Rel. Earl A. BROGAN v. Frank G. MARTIN, Warden, Eastern State Penitentiary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The relator, Earl A. Brogan, appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the district court. Brogan was convicted of armed robbery in state court and sentenced to prison. He did not appeal his conviction but later filed a habeas corpus petition in state court, which was dismissed and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal. In his current petition, Brogan contends the evidence at his trial did not establish he robbed the individual named in the indictment, constituting a due process violation. However, the court found this argument challenges the sufficiency of evidence, not the essential fairness of the trial, and cannot be raised via habeas corpus as a substitute for appeal. The district court's denial of the petition was affirmed

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    238 F.

    2d 236

    UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Earl A. BROGAN


    v.
    Frank G. MARTIN, Warden, Eastern State Penitentiary,
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
    No. 12028.

    United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.


    Submitted November 6, 1956.
    Decided November 19, 1956.

    Earl A. Brogan, pro se.


    Jerome B. Apfel, Thomas M. Reed, James N. Lafferty, Victor H. Blank,
    Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
    Before MARIS and KALODNER, Circuit Judges, and WORTENDYKE,
    District Judge.
    PER CURIAM.

    The relator, who is serving a sentence in the Eastern State Penitentiary of


    Pennsylvania following his conviction in a state court of armed robbery,
    appeals from the denial by the district court of his petition for a writ of habeas
    corpus. It appears that the relator did not appeal from his conviction in the state
    court but subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state
    court which was dismissed, the dismissal being affirmed on appeal. Com. ex
    rel. Brogan v. Tees, 1956, 180 Pa.Super. 174, 119 A.2d 561, alloc. ref. 180
    Pa.Super. XXV, certiorari denied Brogan v. Martin, 351 U.S. 928, 76 S.Ct.
    785.

    The relator's contention here is the same as it was in the state habeas corpus
    proceeding, namely, that the evidence at his trial did not establish that he had
    robbed the individual whom he was charged in the indictment with having
    robbed, and that this variance between allegations and proof amounted to a
    denial of due process of law. We are satisfied, as was the Superior Court of
    Pennsylvania, that the relator's contentions, if true, do not disclose a denial of

    due process of law. All that is asserted is that the evidence was not sufficient to
    sustain the relator's conviction. While this contention might have been raised on
    a motion for a new trial or on an appeal from the conviction it does not raise a
    question of the essential fairness of the trial. The district court rightly held that
    the question could not be raised on habeas corpus for it is settled that such a
    writ cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal.
    3

    The order of the district court will be affirmed.

    You might also like