Raetzsch v. U.S., 78-1099

Decision Date21 June 1978
Docket NumberNo. 78-1099,78-1099
Citation575 F.2d 549
PartiesCarl W. RAETZSCH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. Summary Calendar. *
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Carl W. Raetzsch, pro se.

J. A. Canales, U. S. Atty., James R. Gough, George A. Kelt, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for respondent-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Before RONEY, GEE and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Raetzsch appeals from denial of his motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, asserting that his guilty plea was involuntary because given while under the influence of a narcotic. The sentencing court denied relief without a hearing. Since we agree that the records in the case show conclusively that Raetzsch is entitled to no relief, we affirm.

The narcotic was methadone, administered to Raetzsch in diminishing, controlled dosages pursuant to a detoxification program entailed by his heroin habit. At the time of his plea, on September 27, 1974, he was in the third phase of dose reduction for that month, having received 60 milligrams of methadone that morning by contrast with 100 per day at the beginning of September.

The Supreme Court has recognized that proper administration of methadone eliminates the craving for heroin without producing euphoria. United States v. Moore, 423 U.S. 122, 125, 96 S.Ct. 335, 46 L.Ed.2d 333 (1975). There is no contention that Raetzsch's program was not properly conducted or that he was receiving more than his prescribed dosage. Moreover, he advised the court of his condition at the plea hearing and asserted that the methadone had no effect on his ability to understand the proceedings. His responses to the court's questions were coherent and appropriate then, as they were at sentencing nine weeks later when he was still on the methadone program. It is all too plain that he had a rational as well as a factual understanding of the plea proceeding, Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960), and that the court's finding that he did is compelled by the record.

AFFIRMED.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Rowlee v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • 15 Junio 1983
    ...on the basis of congressional authority to create specialized courts under article I of the Constitution. See, e.g., Raetzsch v. United States, 575 F.2d 549 (5th 1978); Stix Freidman & Co. v. Coyle, 467 F.2d 474 (8th Cir. 1972); Nash Miami Motors, Inc. v. Commissioner, 358 F.2d 636 (5th Cir......
  • HABERTHIER v. Commissioner
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • 24 Julio 1984
    ...on the basis of congressional authority to create specialized courts under Article I of the Constitution. E.g., Raetzsch v. United States, 575 F. 2d 549 (5th Cir. 1978); Stix Friedman & Co.v. Coyle 72-2 USTC ¶ 9692, 467 F. 2d 474 (8th Cir. 1972); Nash Miami Motors, Inc. v. Commissioner 66-1......
  • Franklin v. U.S., 78-2490
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 6 Febrero 1979
    ...hearing and plea proceedings show that Franklin was alert, coherent, and fully competent to stand trial. See Raetzsch v. United States, 575 F.2d 549 (5th Cir. 1978). In a related vein, the District Court did not err in failing to order a competency hearing, because there was nothing in Fran......
  • U.S. v. Raetzsch, 84-2250
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 5 Febrero 1986
    ...that his guilty plea was invalid because of his being under the influence of methadone at the time of the hearing. Raetzsch v. United States, 575 F.2d 549 (5th Cir.1978). No allegation of an unkept plea bargain was made at that In November 1983, nine years following the guilty plea, Raetzsc......

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