Stegall v. United States, 13382.

Decision Date10 November 1958
Docket NumberNo. 13382.,13382.
PartiesCharles Edward STEGALL, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

M. K. Pentecost, Jr., and Edward E. Carter, of Cravey & Pentecost, Atlanta, Ga., Robert L. Myre, Sr., Paducah, Ky., for appellant.

J. Leonard Walker and William B. Jones, U. S. Attys., Louisville, Ky., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, McALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Certiorari Denied November 10, 1958. See 79 S.Ct. 128.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a convicted defendant in a criminal case, moved to vacate judgment, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C.A. Section 2255. He alleged that certain testimony was taken during the trial of his case while he was absent from the courtroom. This testimony had to do with a confession of a codefendant, Messamore. The confession was admitted in evidence solely for consideration by the jury of the case against Messamore; and the trial court explicitly instructed the jury that it could, in no wise, be considered against appellant. By his own choice and employment, appellant was represented by two able lawyers, one of whom had represented him for approximately a month before the trial. The claim that appellant was not present when testimony regarding the confession of Messamore was introduced is made for the first time more than eight years after the trial, and while the allegation of appellant's petition in this regard is not denied, appellant's attorneys on the trial of the case did not call the trial court's attention to any claim that appellant had not been present at all times during the trial, or that he was not present at the time the testimony regarding Messamore's confession was introduced. Even if appellant had been absent during the testimony as to Messamore's confession — which is doubtful — appellant's attorneys were present at all times; and assuming appellant's statement to be true, he was not prejudiced in any way, in view of the trial court's admonition that the confession could be considered only as to Messamore and could not be considered in any way against appellant.

Appellant attacked the sufficiency of the indictment by motion to vacate, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C.A. Section 2255. The proper method of attacking the sufficiency of an indictment before this court is by direct appeal. "When there is an offense defined by a federal statute, of which the sentencing court has jurisdiction, and the indictment or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Leroux v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • June 5, 1973
    ...See also: Cox v. United States (8th Cir. 1962), 309 F.2d 614; Stegall v. United States (D.C.Ky.1957), 153 F.Supp. 844, affirmed (6th Cir.), 259 F.2d 83, certiorari denied 358 U.S. 886, 79 S.Ct. 128, 3 L.Ed.2d 114; People v. Isby (1947), 30 Cal.2d 879, 186 P.2d 405.19 Ramer v. State, supra, ......
  • Hall v. United States, 10992.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • May 13, 1969
    ...(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 923, 78 S.Ct. 708, 2 L.Ed.2d 718 (1957). This is properly a matter for direct appeal. Stegall v. United States, 259 F.2d 83 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 886, 79 S.Ct. 128, 3 L.Ed.2d 114 In United States v. Martell, 335 F.2d 764 (4th Cir. 1964), we co......
  • Smith v. United States, 21886.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • February 23, 1966
    ...appellant's failure to object to the trial court's Rule 43 determination precludes appellant from doing so here. Stegall v. United States, 259 F.2d 83 (6th Cir. 1958); Parker v. United States, 184 F.2d 488 (4th Cir. Resolute next contends that the trial court erred in (1) refusing to set as......
  • Eisner v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • October 6, 1965
    ...Court has held that the sufficiency of the indictment is not subject to attack under Section 2255, Title 28, U.S.C. Stegall v. United States, 6 Cir., 259 F.2d 83, 84, cert. den. 358 U.S. 886, 79 S.Ct. 128, 3 L.Ed.2d 114. See also Kreuter v. United States, 10 Cir., 201 F.2d 33, 35. The gener......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT