Bates v. Meadows
| Decision Date | 28 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 16234.,16234. |
| Citation | 358 F.2d 674 |
| Parties | Willie BATES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James E. MEADOWS, Acting Warden, Tennessee State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Robert H. Gorman, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.
Ed R. Davies, Special Counsel State of Tennessee, Nashville, Tenn., Henry C. Foutch, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Tennessee, Nashville Tenn., on brief; George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen., and Reporter, State of Tennessee, Nashville, Tenn., of counsel, for appellee.
Before EDWARDS, Circuit Judge, McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge, and BROOKS, District Judge.*
Petitioner-appellant, Willie Bates, is a state prisoner serving a life sentence for rape. He has previously been convicted on a guilty plea and has served a sentence for a similar offense. This appeal is taken from an order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, which denied, after a hearing, an application for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner complains that his guilty plea entered in the state court was not voluntarily and understandingly made and, in fact, claims that he never entered a guilty plea and that no one was authorized to enter such a plea in his behalf. On this issue the district court, after hearing the evidence, found that petitioner's "testimony showed clearly that he cannot be relied upon to tell the truth" and held that petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof of establishing his contention by a preponderance of the evidence.
At the evidentiary hearing the petitioner was the only witness who claimed to remember any details of his state court proceedings that took place in 1960. His unsupported testimony accusing the court and his appointed counsel of flagrant irregularities fully justifies the finding of the district court that the petitioner's testimony was unworthy of belief. Among other uncorroborated accusations, he asserts that a judge was not present at the time of his arraignment on August 2, 1960, when he entered a not guilty plea, and also that he was not represented by his court appointed counsel at that time. Both of these charges are clearly contradicted by an order of the state court signed by the presiding judge. Petitioner further states that he did not change his plea to guilty on October 19, 1960, the day sentence was imposed, and claims that he was sentenced to life imprisonment after his attorney had left the courtroom, and in spite of his insistence to the court that he had not pled guilty and wanted to stand trial. These charges of judicial and professional misconduct are likewise contradicted with clarity and particularity by the journal of the state court signed by the presiding judge.
The judgments...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Myers v. State
...256; State ex rel. Johnson v. Mainard, 188 Tenn. 501, 221 S.W.2d 531; Gray v. Johnson, 354 F.2d 986 (6th Cir. 1965); Bates v. Meadows, 358 F.2d 674 (6th Cir. 1966); State ex rel. Lawrence v. Henderson, Tenn.Crim.App., 433 S.W.2d 96; Turner v. State, Tenn.Crim.App., 447 S.W.2d 876. We find t......
-
Huffman v. Beto
...be lightly set aside on collateral attack. United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 512, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954); Bates v. Meadows, 358 F.2d 674 (6th Cir. 1966). The petitioner in a habeas corpus application, therefore, has the burden of proving that he did not competently and intel......
-
State ex rel. Lawrence v. Henderson
...256; State ex rel. Johnson v. Mainard, 188 Tenn. 501, 221 S.W.2d 531; Gray v. Johnson, (6th Cir., 1965) 354 F.2d 986; Bates v. Meadows, (6th Cir., 1966) 358 F.2d 674. With respect to the first Assignment, it is sufficient to say that this record shows that the petitioner did not make any co......
-
United States v. Braxton, Criminal No. 3:08cr187-HEH
...the collateral attack by a preponderance of the evidence. Vanater v. Boles, 377 F.2d 898, 900 (4th Cir. 1967) (citing Bates v. Meadows, 358 F.2d 674, 675 (6th Cir. 1996)); White v. United States, 352 F. Supp. 2d 684, 686 (E.D. Va. 2004) (citations omitted). In a § 2255 proceeding, a court m......