Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2
 
380 F.2d 370
James STROWDER, Appellant,v.Dr. John P. SHOVLIN, Superintendent, Fairview StateHospital, Waymart, Pennsylvania.
 No. 16387.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Submitted May 5, 1967. Decided June 23, 1967.
James Strowder, pro se.Dewin J. Martin, Robert W. Duggan, Dist. Atty., Pettsburgh, Pa., for appellee.Before STALEY, Chief Judge, and BIGGS and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.PER CURIAM.1This is an appeal from the denial of appellant's writ of habeas corpus. Theappellant, James Strowder, is presently confined in the Fairview State Hospital.He had pleaded guilty to a charge of armed robbery and was sentenced toimprisonment for not less than eighteen months nor more than five years onJanuary 4, 1960. He was released on parole in June of 1961, but he was later apprehended and required to serve the balance of his sentence because of a parole violation.
1
 While he was serving the balance of his term, he was orderedto be committed to the Fairview State Hospital.2Appellants length brief questions the legality of his conviction in 1960 and theconstitutionality of the procedure by which he was committed to the statehospital. It is clear that he has not exhausted his state remedies with regard tothe commitment proceedings as is required by 28 U.S.C. 2254.
2
 Cf., Skipper v.Shovlin, 368 F.2d 954 (C.A. 3, 1966). We, therefore, do not deal with thosequestions.His aruments concernin the unconstitutionalit of his conviction are not
 
He was arrested on a charge of armed robbery to which he pleaded guilty andreceived a suspended sentenceWe do not reach the issue of the voluntariness of appellant's confession.Though the district court discussed this issue, the record indicates that there has been no exhaustion of state remedies concerning this matter  detailed. From the cases cited and the copious quotations appearing in his brief,appellant appears to question the length of his detention and questioning andthe failure of the police to advise him to remain silent and to permit him toconsult with his family and counsel. The cited cases of Mallory v. UnitedStates, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479 (1957), and McNabb v.United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819 (1943), are neither constitutional in dimension nor are they binding on the States. There is also nomerit in appellant's reliance upon Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478,84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964), and Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Though those cases were notdiscussed by the district court, Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719,86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966), precludes the application of their  principles to this case.4The judgment of the district court, 272 F.Supp. 271, will be affirmed.12

Satisfaites votre curiosité

Tout ce que vous voulez lire.
À tout moment. Partout. Sur n'importe quel appareil.
Aucun engagement. Annulez à tout moment.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505