Connors v. United States, Civ. A. No. 71-C-44-R.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Virginia)
Citation325 F. Supp. 596
Decision Date14 April 1971
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 71-C-44-R.
PartiesJohn Leo CONNORS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.
OPINION and JUDGMENT

DALTON, Chief Judge.

On December 4, 1968 John Leo Connors was convicted in this court upon his pleas of guilty to violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2312 and 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). Since he was twenty years old on the date of conviction, he came within the terms of the Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 5005 et seq., and the court sentenced him to the custody of the Attorney General as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 5010(b). Under the provisions of the Youth Corrections Act the offender must be released conditionally under supervision within four years of conviction and must be released unconditionally within six years from the date of conviction.

In the present proceeding Connors has filed a motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on the grounds that: (a) he was not represented by counsel at the hearing before the commissioner; (b) he is subject to a maximum of six years restriction under the Youth Corrections Act while an adult convicted of the same offenses could only be sentenced to a term of five years on each conviction; and (c) he was subject to an illegal arrest by F.B.I. agents who allegedly entered his father's house without a warrant and without his father's permission.

The issues raised by the petitioner are questions of law which do not require extended discussion because they have been settled by previous decisions in the federal courts. A number of earlier challenges have been made to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 5010(b) and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has followed the rulings of other courts of appeals and ruled it constitutional. Johnson v. United States, 374 F.2d 966 (4th Cir. 1967); Brisco v. United States, 368 F.2d 214 (3rd Cir. 1966); Rogers v. United States, 326 F.2d 56 (10th Cir. 1963); Cunningham v. United States, 256 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1958). The statute has been sustained on the ground that it envisions care and treatment of the young offender rather than subjecting him to the relatively unsettling effects of prison. In addition the offender must be released from actual confinement within four years even though he still may be subject to supervision for the period remaining within six years of conviction. Conversely, the adult offender may remain in prison for a five year period. At any rate the constitutionality of this statute is so settled as to make it beyond the inquiry of this court.

The other issues which the petitioner raises concerning denial of counsel at the commissioner's hearing and an alleged illegal arrest have been foreclosed by the petitioner's guilty plea. Even if these two allegations are accepted as true, they cannot justify relief because they were preliminary defects which were waived by the guilty plea. A voluntary and understanding plea of guilty is a waiver of all previous defects of a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Ashby v. Cox
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • June 2, 1972
    ...of arrest was ever issued against him for grand larceny, Williams v. Smith, 434 F.2d 592, 595 (5th Cir. 1970); Connors v. United States, 325 F.Supp. 596, 597 (W.D.Va. 1971); Quillien v. Leeke, 303 F.Supp. 698, 705 (D.S.C.1969), although there is no requirement that a warrant of arrest be is......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT