Clark v. United States, 13847.
| Decision Date | 31 December 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 13847.,13847. |
| Citation | 273 F.2d 68 |
| Parties | Roy Vester CLARK, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Booth Shepard, Cincinnati, Ohio (appointed by the court), for appellant.
C. C. Ridenour, Asst. U. S. Atty., Knoxville, Tenn. (John C. Crawford, Jr., U. S. Atty., Knoxville, Tenn., on the brief), for appellee.
Before SHACKELFORD MILLER, Jr., and CECIL, Circuit Judges, and WM. E. MILLER, District Judge.
Appellant was indicted for causing to be transported in interstate commerce, with unlawful and fraudulent intent, "a falsely made, forged and counterfeited security, knowing the same to have been falsely made, forged and counterfeited", in violation of Sec. 2314, Title 18, U.S.Code. He was represented by court-appointed counsel. After an initial plea of not guilty, the plea was withdrawn and a plea of guilty entered. He was sentenced to a term of five years.
Appellant thereafter filed a motion to vacate the sentence, under the provisions of Sec. 2255, Title 28 U.S.Code, several different grounds. On the hearing of the motion, the District Judge heard testimony not only on the grounds set out in the motion, but also relative to the execution of the checks in question, and heard argument on the legal question of whether the Government's evidence showed a violation of the statute.
This evidence showed execution of the checks by appellant in his own name on a non-existent bank. The District Judge ruled as a matter of law that such evidence showed a falsely made or forged security within the wording of the statute and denied the motion. This appeal followed.
We are of the opinion that the sufficiency of the evidence to support appellant's sentence cannot be challenged by a motion to vacate under Sec. 2255. A motion to vacate cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal. Davilman v. United States, 6 Cir., 180 F.2d 284; Austin v. United States, 6 Cir., 224 F.2d 273; certiorari denied 350 U. S. 865, 76 S.Ct. 108, 100 L.Ed. 766; Stephenson v. United States, 6 Cir., 257 F.2d 175, 177. The indictment charged an offense under the statute, of which the sentencing court had jurisdiction. The Court had jurisdiction over the appellant. The judgment was not subject to collateral attack under Sec. 2255. Stegall v. United States, 6 Cir., 259 F. 2d 83, 84, certiorari denied 358 U.S. 886, 79 S.Ct. 128, 3 L.Ed.2d 114; Kreuter v. United States, 10 Cir., 201 F.2d 33, 35.
We cannot now inquire into whether the Government's evidence was sufficient to prove the commission of the alleged offense. Appellant by his voluntary plea of guilty, admitted all of the facts well pleaded in the indictment. Such issues cannot be raised later by a motion to vacate sentence. United States v. Caufield, 7 Cir., 207 F. 2d 278, 280; Smith v. United States, 10 Cir., 205 F.2d 768, 771; Thompson v. United States, 8 Cir., 200 F.2d 143, 146; Woodring v. United States, 8 Cir., 248 F.2d 166, 169; Hornbrook v. United States, 5 Cir., 216 F.2d 112; Godish v. United States, 10 Cir., 182 F.2d 342. See: Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 223, 47 S.Ct. 582, 71 L.Ed. 1009.
The sufficiency...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Smith
...matter outside the four corners of the indictment which at most constitutes a defense to the crime charged. Clark v. United States, 273 F.2d 68, 69 (6th Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 979, 80 S.Ct. 1064, 4 L.Ed.2d 1013 (1960). Nor may he raise "a question of jurisdiction because of the ......
-
Melvin v. United States
...his inquiry in this matter to the four corners of the Criminal Information, distinguishing this case from that of Clark v. United States, 6 Cir., 1959, 273 F.2d 68, where a federal offense was charged in the indictment to which Roy Vester Clark, Jr. had pleaded guilty, thus precluding him f......
-
Gandy v. United States, DC6463.
...committed as charged in count two of the indictment and Gandy was convicted of that crime on his plea of guilty. In Clark v. United States, 273 F.2d 68 (6th Cir. 1959), defendant was convicted on his plea of guilty and thereafter filed a motion to vacate the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.......
-
Bartholomew v. United States
...to contend that there was no evidence offered." To like effect, see Adam v. United States, 10 Cir., 274 F.2d 880, 883; Clark v. United States, 6 Cir., 273 F.2d 68, 69. There is no merit to defendant's contention that a check is not a security. The definition section of the National Stolen P......