Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States of America Ex Rel. Alexander Murphy v. The State of New Jersey and Warren Pinto, Superintendent of New Jersey State Prison Farm, 15824 (1967)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Number: 15824 Visitors: 16
Filed: Mar. 13, 1967
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 369 F.2d 698 UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Alexander MURPHY, Appellant, v. The STATE OF NEW JERSEY and Warren Pinto, Superintendent of New Jersey State Prison Farm. No. 15824. United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit. Submitted on Briefs Oct. 18, 1966. Decided Nov. 1, 1966, Certiorari Denied March 13, 1967, See 87 S. Ct. 1044 . Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; Robert Shaw, Judge. Alexander Murphy, pro se. Raymond R. Trombadore, Deputy Atty. Gen.
More

369 F.2d 698

UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Alexander MURPHY, Appellant,
v.
The STATE OF NEW JERSEY and Warren Pinto, Superintendent of
New Jersey State Prison Farm.

No. 15824.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Submitted on Briefs Oct. 18, 1966.
Decided Nov. 1, 1966, Certiorari Denied March 13, 1967, See
87 S. Ct. 1044.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; Robert Shaw, Judge.

Alexander Murphy, pro se.

Raymond R. Trombadore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Somerville, N.J., for appellee.

Before MARIS, McLAUGHLIN and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

1

In this habeas corpus proceeding the relator asserts that he was convicted in New Jersey of larceny through the use of evidence obtained in the course of an illegal search by the police of an automobile which he was driving. The issue was raised by him on appeal from his conviction to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey and was exhaustively considered by that court in the light of the relevant authorities and was rejected. State v. Griffin, 1964, 84 N.J.Super. 508, 202 A.2d 856. The question was independently considered by the district court in the present proceeding and is fully discussed in a comprehensive opinion filed in that court by Judge Shaw, 260 F. Supp. 987, with which we are in complete accord.

2

The order of the district court will be affirmed.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer