Blair v. United States, 8090.
| Decision Date | 20 July 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 8090.,8090. |
| Citation | 349 F.2d 405 |
| Parties | Arlis Burl BLAIR, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Michael F. Morrissey, Denver, Colo. (Frickey & Morrissey, Denver, Colo., on brief), for appellant.
Phillips Breckinridge, Asst. U. S. Atty., (John M. Imel, U. S. Atty., and Lawrence A. McSoud, Asst. U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, LEWIS and HILL, Circuit Judges.
On April 11, 1962, Blair entered a plea of guilty to an information filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma charging him with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2115 and was sentenced to the custody of the Attorney General for a period of two years. After having served such sentence and when he was not in custody thereunder, but was in fact in custody in the Kansas State Penitentiary, he filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate such two-year Federal sentence. From an order denying the motion, he has appealed.
A motion to vacate a sentence under § 2255, supra, will not lie unless the movant is in custody under such sentence.
In a proper case, the court to which the motion is addressed may regard it as a petition for a writ in the nature of coram nobis. United States v. Capsopa, 2 Cir., 260 F.2d 566; Lopez v. United States, 9 Cir., 217 F.2d 526. See also: Williams v. United States, 10 Cir., 267 F.2d 559, 560, c.d. 361 U.S. 867, 80 S.Ct. 128, 4 L.Ed.2d 106; United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248. Here, however, on the record before us, it is clear that the attack on the validity of the sentence was groundless and the court did not err in failing to treat the motion as a petition for a writ in the nature of coram nobis.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Bustillos
...415, 418, 79 S.Ct. 451, 453, 3 L.Ed.2d 407 (1959); United States v. Condit, 621 F.2d 1096, 1098 (10th Cir.1980); Blair v. United States, 349 F.2d 405, 405 (10th Cir.1965); Igo v. United States, 303 F.2d 317, 318 (10th Cir.1962); 2 or (2) a federal sentence that has been ordered to run conse......
-
Owensby v. United States, 8262
...under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 was not yet available, Heflin v. United States, 358 U.S. 415, 99 S.Ct. 451, 3 L.Ed.2d 407; Blair v. United States, 349 F.2d 405 (10th Cir.), nor was habeas corpus, McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131, 55 S.Ct. 24, 79 L.Ed. 238. The only remedy available appears to have be......
-
State v. Theoharopoulos
...of the state court. The federal court directed that the petition be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Similarly, Blair v. United States (1965, 10th cir.), 349 F.2d 405, holds that a sec. 2255 motion does not lie unless the petitioner is in custody under the sentence he desires to In the i......
-
Johnson v. State, 51262
...§ 2255 is authorized only to persons in custody under the sentence which is sought to be set aside. For example, in Blair v. United States, 349 F.2d 405 (10th Cir. 1965), Blair was convicted and sentenced to federal custody. After completing the federal sentence Blair was imprisoned at the ......