Legal Opinion

Herold v. Haugh

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided October 18, 1966No. 52064PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGarfield, C. J.

Plaintiff Herold sought his release by habeas corpus from confinement in the Men’s Reformatory at Anamosa where he was serving -a sentence for forgery. Following a hearing the district court denied relief and plaintiff has appealed. We affirm the decision.

Sole ground for the relief sought in the district court was that plaintiffs plea of guilty to the crime of forgery was not voluntary but was the result of coercion, the judgment of conviction was therefore not consistent with due process of law and cannot stand. The court found from the evidence the plea was voluntary and annulled the writ.…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Garland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  2. United States v. DennistonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1937
  3. Sewell v. LainsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1953
  4. State v. BastedoSupreme Court of Iowa · 1961
  5. United States v. Moe LissCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1939

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Scalf v. BennettSupreme Court of Iowa · 1967
  2. State v. BrechSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Hansen v. HaughSupreme Court of Iowa · 1967
  4. State v. LindseySupreme Court of Iowa · 1969
  5. Parrott v. HaughSupreme Court of Iowa · 1968

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API