Anderson v. United States
| Decision Date | 11 June 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 20614.,20614. |
| Citation | 318 F.2d 815 |
| Parties | James L. ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
No appearances for either appellant or appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge, LUMBARD, Chief Judge*, and BROWN, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner seeks an order allowing him to appeal in forma pauperis from a denial, without hearing, of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2255, 1915. Following our regular practice in making a determination of these matters, we have access to the record below and have reviewed it carefully. See Juelich v. United States, 5 Cir., 1963, 316 F.2d 726. We are of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by first allowing Petitioner's appeal to this Court and then setting the case down for argument. The Court below denied Petitioner's § 2255 motion on the ground that the "files and records conclusively show" that he is entitled to no relief.
Petitioner alleges with sufficient factual particularity that he was mentally incompetent, not only at the time of the commission of the offense, but also at the time of trial under his plea of not guilty. Twenty-two months after his arrest (and following his sentence) Petitioner was diagnosed as a schizophrenic paranoid personality and is presently confined in a medical center for federal prisoners. Nothing in the record refutes these allegations. Indeed, the record (apart from the § 2255 motion) is completely silent as to the mental capacity of Petitioner as of these various times. As we have pointed out in the many cases catalogued in Porter v. United States, 5 Cir., 1962, 298 F.2d 461, 464, a hearing as to the appropriate issues is required unless — in the plain words of the statute — "the files and records of the case conclusively show that the Petitioner is entitled to no relief." Like many other cases presenting a question of mental competency, this case must go back for a hearing to determine factually the merit of Petitioner's contentions. Gregori v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 243 F.2d 48; Praylow v. United States, 5 Cir., 1962, 298 F.2d 792; Hughes v. United States, 5 Cir., 1962, 303 F.2d 776; Corbett v. United States, 5 Cir., 1961, 296 F.2d 131; Van De Bogart v. United States, 5 Cir., 1962, 305 F.2d 583; Alexander v. United States, 5 Cir., 1961, 290 F.2d 252; Brown v. United States, 5 Cir., 1959, 267 F.2d 42. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seguros Tepeyac, SA, Compania Mexicana v. Bostrom
...335 F.2d 317; Benson v. United States, 5 Cir., 1964, 332 F.2d 288; Whitney v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1964, 332 F.2d 787; Anderson v. United States, 5 Cir., 1963, 318 F.2d 815; Juelich v. United States, 5 Cir., 1963, 316 F.2d 726; Younger Bros., Inc. v. United States, S.D.Texas (3-Judge), 1965,......
-
Burton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
...L.Ed.2d 11; Benson v. United States, 5 Cir., 1964, 332 F.2d 288; Whitney v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1964, 332 F.2d 787; Anderson v. United States, 5 Cir., 1963, 318 F.2d 815; Juelich v. United States, 5 Cir., 1963, 316 F. 2d 16 One tag end requires definitive disposition by this Court. Unless t......
-
Raines v. United States, 12404
...1968); Norman v. United States, 368 F.2d 645 (3rd Cir. 1966); Olive v. United States, 327 F.2d 646 (6th Cir. 1964); Anderson v. United States, 318 F.2d 815 (5th Cir. 1963). Machibroda distinguishes between a "full hearing" and an investigation "without requiring the personal presence of the......
-
Benson v. United States
...1963, 317 F.2d 608, and so have we. Whitney v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1964, 332 F.2d 787 No. 21193, January 17, 1964; Anderson v. United States, 5 Cir., 1963, 318 F.2d 815; Juelich v. United States, 5 Cir., 1963, 316 F.2d All recognize that one of the most important functions to be performed b......