Bent v. United States
| Decision Date | 19 October 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 16999.,16999. |
| Citation | 308 F.2d 585 |
| Parties | Joseph F. BENT, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Joseph F. Bent, Jr., pro se.
F. Russell Millin, U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., and Clifford M. Spottsville, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.
Before VOGEL and VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judges, and VAN PELT, District Judge.
This is an appeal by Joseph F. Bent, Jr., from order entered January 19, 1962, denying without hearing evidence his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion, filed December 7, 1961, to vacate a sentence he is serving on Count II of an indictment charging that Bent, while robbing the custodian of a Kansas City Post Office substation of money belonging to the United States, put the life of such custodian in jeopardy by using a dangerous weapon, all in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 320, now 18 U.S.C.A. § 2114.
Bent in his present motion asserts that Count II of the indictment is fatally defective in that it failed to provide him with information essential to the preparation of his defense and that he suffered prejudice by reason thereof.
Bent, by a prior motion, challenged the sufficiency of Count II of the indictment. Upon appeal, we held the indictment was sufficient to support the conviction on Count II. United States v. Bent, 8 Cir., 175 F.2d 397.
The indictment, the attack upon it, a summary of the proceedings leading to the conviction and sentence, and the basis for rejecting the attack upon the indictment are all adequately set out in our prior opinion just referred to.
We agree with the trial court's finding in the present case, reading:
"Although the defendant now attacks the jurisdiction of the court under Count II of the indictment in different language, it is the identical question that was passed on by the Court of Appeals".
The sole error urged upon this appeal is thus stated:
"The Court below erred by overruling and denying appellant\'s Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Judgment of Conviction and Sentence, Criminal Case No. 16,463, solely and exclusively on the ground of Res Adjudicata."
The short answer to the asserted error is that the court did not deny the motion solely upon the basis of res adjudicata. We agree that the strict doctrine of res adjudicata does not apply to § 2255 motions. We so held in Lipscomb v. United States, 8 Cir., 298 F.2d 9. However, a court is not compelled to grant a full scale hearing upon issues already fairly adjudicated, particularly where, as here, no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Puckett v. United States
...to relief. See, e. g., Burley v. United States, 10 Cir., 295 F.2d 317; Williams v. United States, 9 Cir., 307 F.2d 366; Bent v. United States, 8 Cir., 308 F.2d 585; United States v. Berry, 7 Cir., 309 F.2d 311; Thomas v. United States, 7 Cir., 308 F.2d 369; United States v. Crawley, 4 Cir.,......
-
United States v. Orlando
...time an issue previously considered and ruled upon by him. Section 2255 expressly relieves him of the requirement to do so. Bent v. United States, 308 F.2d 585, C.A.8th, cert. denied, 373 U.S. 917, 83 S.Ct. 1307, 10 L.Ed.2d 416, rehearing denied, 374 U.S. 818, 83 S.Ct. 1699, 10 L.Ed.2d 1042......
-
Cassidy v. United States
...or legal basis is asserted for relief. Under such circumstances, the court is not compelled to grant a hearing. Bent v. United States, 308 F.2d 585 (8th Cir. 1962); Dean v. United States, 265 F.2d 544 (8th Cir. 1959). This remedy has as its purpose to correct errors "it is presumed, would n......
-
Butler v. United States
...to another review of this question. Although the strict doctrine of res judicata does not apply to § 2255 motions, Bent v. United States, 308 F.2d 585 (8 Cir.1962), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 917, 83 S.Ct. 1307, 10 L.Ed.2d 416 (1963); Lipscomb v. United States, 298 F.2d 9, 11 (8 Cir.1962), cert......