Ellis v. United States, 13781.
Decision Date | 25 February 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 13781.,13781. |
Citation | 313 F.2d 848 |
Parties | George ELLIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Don H. Reuben, Frederick W. Temple, Chicago, Ill., John E. Angle, Kirkland, Ellis, Hodson, Chaffetz & Masters, Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for appellant.
James P. O'Brien, U. S. Atty., John Powers Crowley, John Peter Lulinski, Raymond F. Zvetina, Asst. U. S. Attys., of counsel, Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Before SCHNACKENBERG, KNOCH and KILEY, Circuit Judges.
George Ellis, petitioner, filed a petition in the district court on November 13, 1961 stamped "Filed Jan. 22, 1962" by the clerk of the court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, seeking the vacation of his sentence on a plea of guilty for violating § 4705(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended by the Narcotics Control Act of 1956, as well as violating § 174, Title 21 United States Code, as amended by said act of 1956.
The petition was prepared by petitioner without legal assistance. It indicates that he is possessed of a meager knowledge of the law and is of limited education. The questions it raises as to his plea of guilty are stated in the following language:
At the time of his sentence petitioner was in the custody of the State of Illinois, where he was awaiting trial on a charge of possession of narcotics.
Upon the occasion of the entry of his plea of guilty, his attorney withdrew a plea of not guilty theretofore entered, and the following proceedings occurred:
The record does not show that the district court was ever advised of the result of the state court proceeding or was ever requested to review the sentence imposed.
On December 28, 1961, and again on January 31, 1962, petitioner wrote to the chief judge of the district court asking for information concerning the disposition of his § 2255 petition aforesaid.
The government on February 23, 1962 answered the petition to vacate.
On May 14, 1962, Judge Richard B. Austin, entered an order denying relief sought by said petition filed under § 2255.
On May 29, 1962, the clerk of the court marked "filed" a motion by petitioner for appointment of counsel, subscribed and sworn to by him before a parole officer at Leavenworth penitentiary, where he was incarcerated, on November 21, 1961. Said motion for appointment of counsel was denied by Judge Austin by order entered May 29, 1962.
On May 31, 1962 Judge Austin gave leave to petitioner to prosecute his appeal as a poor person.
1. Rule 11 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., provides:
"* * * The court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty, and shall not accept the plea without first determining that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge. * * *"
We have carefully considered the proceedings accompanying the entry of the plea of guilty by defendant and we are convinced that the court accepted the plea without first determining that it was made...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harrell v. United States
...States, 373 U.S. 1, 21, 83 S.Ct. 1068; see Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708, 709, 81 S.Ct. 895, 6 L.Ed. 2d 39. In Ellis v. United States, 313 F. 2d 848, 851 (7th Cir. 1963), we held that a petitioner in a § 2255 proceeding has no Sixth Amendment right to counsel, but there we did not hesitate......
-
Henderson v. United States
...Clause of the Fifth Amendment (Dillon v. United States, supra; and Anderson v. Heinze, 9 Cir., 258 F.2d 479; and cf. Ellis v. United States, 7 Cir., 313 F.2d 848; and United States ex rel. Wissenfeld v. Wilkins, 2 Cir., 281 F.2d 707). The assistance of counsel, whether demanded by the Fifth......
-
Rauter v. U.S.
...Because it is civil in nature, a petitioner under Sec. 2255 does not have a constitutional right to counsel. Ellis v. United States, 313 F.2d 848, 850 (7th Cir.1963); McCartney v. United States, 311 F.2d 475, 476 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 848, 83 S.Ct. 1910, 10 L.Ed.2d 1068 (1963);......
-
Dyer v. United States
... ... 1953). Because it is civil in nature, a petitioner under ... § 2255 does not have a constitutional right to counsel ... Ellis v. United States , 313 F.2d 848, 850 (7th Cir ... 1963); McCartney v. United States , 311 F.2d 475, 476 ... (7th Cir.), cert. denied , ... ...