551 F.2d 776 (8th Cir. 1977), 76-1748, Wiley v. Daggett
|Docket Nº:||76-1748 to 76-1750.|
|Citation:||551 F.2d 776|
|Party Name:||Earthia WILEY, Appellant, v. L. DAGGETT, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, Appellee. Earthia WILEY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Earthia WILEY, Appellant, v. P. J. CICCONE, Warden, Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Missouri, Appellee.|
|Case Date:||March 24, 1977|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit|
Submitted Jan. 14, 1977.
Neal J. Shapiro, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant.
Daniel M. Scott, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), and Robert G. Renner, U. S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., on briefs for appellee.
Before BRIGHT and HENLEY, Circuit Judges, and HARPER, District Judge. [*]
Earthia Wiley, hereinafter called petitioner, appeals from a final order of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota 1 denying three petitions for post-conviction relief filed in 1974 pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner was tried and convicted in the district court in 1973 on a charge that he, being at the time a convicted felon, had unlawfully received and possessed a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a)(1). 2 His conviction was affirmed by this court. United States v. Wiley, 478 F.2d 415 (8th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879, 95 S.Ct. 143, 42 L.Ed.2d 119 (1974). 3
The record reflects that in 1959 petitioner was arrested by police officers in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on a charge of vagrancy based on a municipal ordinance of the kind that was later held to be unconstitutional in Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 92 S.Ct. 839, 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972). While in custody, petitioner confessed to the officers that he had committed the crime of armed robbery in Minnesota. He was returned to that State and was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court of Hennepin County; the conviction followed a trial to the court after petitioner on advice of counsel waived his right to trial by jury. Petitioner did not appeal from that conviction.
When petitioner was tried in the district court in 1973 he was represented by capable
counsel, and no complaint is made about the quality of the representation that he received. In the course of the trial petitioner did not challenge the validity of the underlying felony conviction in Minnesota, and, indeed, his attorney stipulated as to the existence of the conviction. It does not appear that petitioner personally agreed to the stipulation which it seems that counsel entered into as a matter of trial tactics.
The § 2255 petitions considered by the district court were submitted by petitioner pro se while he was still in prison. The district court appointed counsel to represent petitioner, and he has been well represented both in the district court and in this court.
In his petitions it was alleged that petitioner's Minnesota conviction had been...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP