Burleson v. United States
Decision Date | 30 October 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 13782-1.,13782-1. |
Citation | 222 F. Supp. 855 |
Parties | Louis J. BURLESON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Richard Miller, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.
F. Russell Millin, U. S. Dist. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.
Petitioner, slightly over a year after we denied his Section 2255 motion (see Burleson v. United States, W.D.Mo.1962, 205 F.Supp. 331 and 209 F.Supp. 464) has now filed a motion for leave to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis.
For the reasons fully stated in Burns v. United States, W.D.Mo.1962, 210 F. Supp. 528, at 530 to 532, we rule that we do not have jurisdiction to entertain such a petition. Consistent with the rule that "an applicant for * * * relief ought not to be held to the niceties of lawyers' pleadings" (Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, at 22, 83 S.Ct. 1068, at 1080, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963)), we treat petitioner's latest pleading as a second Section 2255 motion.
Such treatment of petitioner's present motion requires an application of the basic rules announced in Sanders v. United States, supra. We recognize that "conventional notions of finality of litigation have no place where life or liberty is at stake and infringement of constitutional rights is alleged" (Sanders v. United States, supra, 373 U.S., at page 8, 83 S.Ct. at p. 1073, 10 L.Ed.2d 148). Accordingly, we proceed with the exercise of our judicial discretion to determine "whether the claim is substantial before granting a full evidentiary hearing" (Sanders v. United States, supra, 373 U.S. at page 21, 83 S.Ct. at page 1080, 10 L.Ed.2d 148).
The files and records in this case show that on May 24, 1962 we determined the following in regard to the petitioner's original motion which we considered as a motion filed pursuant to Section 2255:
On June 15, 1962, after considering a letter from the petitioner dated June 5, 1962, we entered an order appointing counsel. That order was made in spite of the fact that we had determined that the petitioner's letter of June 5, 1962, did not comply with either the letter or the spirit of our order of May 24, 1962.
But said order was made for the following reason stated therein:
We note in passing that Sanders v. United States, supra, 373 U.S. at page 21, 83 S.Ct. at page 1080, 10 L.Ed.2d 148, decided subsequent to that order, wrote approvingly of such a practice.
The files and records of this Court show that Mr. Miller, court appointed counsel, diligently represented petitioner but that after consultation with counsel, petitioner decided he did not want to amend his motion in order that facts rather than vague conclusions be alleged and that he wanted only to have a letter dated August 8, 1962, attached to his file at the court house. That was done.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burleson v. United States
...of the motion was withheld and appellant was given more time in which to set forth "specific and detailed facts". Burleson v. United States, 222 F.Supp. 855, 857 (W.D.Mo.1963). 5. Burleson this time did respond. In an eleven page document, containing many generalities and much material (sea......
-
Burleson v. United States
...v. United States, W. D.Mo.1962, 205 F.Supp. 331; Burleson v. United States, W.D.Mo.1962, 209 F. Supp. 464, and Burleson v. United States, W.D.Mo.1963, 222 F.Supp. 855). Following our order of October 30, 1963 (reported in 222 F.Supp. 855, at page 857), petitioner filed additional briefs wit......
- United States v. Plemmons, Cr. No. 6727.