Barnhart v. United States, 6137.
| Decision Date | 26 September 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 6137.,6137. |
| Citation | 270 F.2d 866 |
| Parties | Byron LaRue BARNHART, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Nell Rhodes Fisher, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.
Jack R. Parr, Asst. U. S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl. (Paul W. Cress, U. S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellee.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS and HUXMAN, Circuit Judges.
An indictment containing three counts was returned against Barnhart in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment charged theft of goods moving as, or which were, a part of an interstate shipment of freight or express in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 659. The third count charged a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C.A. § 659.
On October 18, 1957, Barnhart appeared in open court for arraignment. At that time no attorney appeared for Barnhart. Barnhart advised the court that he had a lawyer and that his lawyer instructed him to enter a plea in the lawyer's absence. The court refused to accept the plea in the absence of Barnhart's lawyer.
Thereafter, on October 25, 1957, Barnhart appeared in open court with an attorney of his own choice. They had been served with a copy of the indictment. Barnhart was advised of the maximum penalty for each of the offenses charged in the indictment. Barnhart waived the reading of the indictment and entered a plea of not guilty to each count.
Thereafter, on December 4, 1957, together with an attorney of his own choice, being a different attorney from the one who represented him at the arraignment, Barnhart appeared in open court. The penalties for the offenses charged were again explained to the defendant. Thereupon, Barnhart waived the reading of the indictment, withdrew his pleas of not guilty, and entered a plea of guilty to each of the three counts. In response to a direct question by the court, Barnhart stated that he desired to withdraw his pleas of not guilty and to enter a plea of guilty to each count of the indictment. In response to further inquiry, Barnhart stated that no promises had been made to him and he entered the pleas without any reservations of any kind. Thereafter, Barnhart appeared in open court, together with his attorney, and having announced that he did not know of any legal reason why the court should not pronounce sentence, was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of ten years on Count 1, a term of ten years on Count 2, and a term of five years on Count 3, the several sentences to run concurrently.
Thereafter, Barnhart filed a motion to vacate the sentences under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. Combined in the same document as the motion is a brief of petitioner in support of the motion. In his motion petitioner set forth that he was arrested at 6:30 p. m. on July 9, 1957, and taken to police headquarters in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; that he asked that an attorney be called and his request was denied; that at 6:45 p. m. on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norris v. Wilson
...v. United States, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 367, 278 F.2d 247 (1960); United States v. French, 274 F.2d 297 (7th Cir. 1960); Barnhart v. United States, 270 F.2d 866 (10th Cir. 1959); Eberhart v. United States, 262 F.2d 421 (9th Cir. 1958); United States v. Sturm, 180 F.2d 413 (7th Cir. 1950); Kinney......
-
Lamothe v. Robbins
...with a full understanding of his rights under the law. Cf. United States v. French, 274 F.2d 297 (7th Cir., 1960); Barnhart v. United States, 270 F.2d 866 (10th Cir., 1959); United States v. Morin, 265 F.2d 241 (3d Cir., 1959); Hall v. United States, 259 F.2d 430 (8th Cir., 1958), cert. den......
-
Watts v. United States, 15209
...his guilt. On this record collateral attack will not lie. Cf. United States v. Morin, 3 Cir., 1959, 265 F.2d 241; Barnhart v. United States, 10 Cir., 1959, 270 F.2d 866. 2. Rule 32(d), Fed.R.Crim.P. Next we consider whether, construing the petition as a motion to withdraw his plea of guilty......
-
Brown v. Turner
...States v. French, 274 F.2d 297 (7th Cir. 1960); United States ex rel. Staples v. Pate, 332 F.2d 531 (7th Cir. 1964); Barnhart v. United States, 270 F.2d 866 (10th Cir. 1959); Hall v. United States, 259 F.2d 430 (8th Cir. 1958), cert. denied 359 U.S. 947, 79 S.Ct. 728, 3 L.Ed.2d 680 (1950); ......