Falu v. United States
| Decision Date | 24 July 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 69 Civ. 1679.,69 Civ. 1679. |
| Citation | 308 F. Supp. 1051 |
| Parties | Ramon E. FALU v. UNITED STATES of America. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., S. D. New York, New York City, for United States.
Ross Sandler, Arthur A. Munisteri, Asst. U. S. Attys., of counsel.
Ramon E. Falu, pro se.
Petitioner moves to vacate and set aside sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
He asserts three grounds for relief: (1) he was under the influence of drugs and legally incompetent at the time of the commission of the crime; (2) he was "on withdrawal from drugs, and under medication being administered daily by medical officers of the (then) place of confinement" causing him to be mentally incompetent at the time of his guilty plea; (3) the court erred in not ordering on its own motion an examination as to petitioner's mental condition and a hearing as to petitioner's competency to stand trial pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4244.
Mental incompetency at the time of the crime is not properly raised by a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See, e. g., Wheeler v. United States, 340 F.2d 119, 121 (8th Cir. 1965). Moreover, that contention was waived when petitioner in full possession of his faculties and represented by able counsel, freely, voluntarily and intelligently pleaded guilty to the crime charged.
Petitioner's contention that he was "on withdrawal from drugs, and under medication" at the time of his guilty plea is conclusively rebutted by the files and records of this case. As stated in the affidavit (verified July 11, 1969) of Assistant United States Attorney Ross Sandler and confirmed by the exhibits attached thereto:
Furthermore, his contention is specifically controverted by his own testimony before Judge Tyler at the time of his plea and in the presence of his attorney.1
Petitioner's final contention that the court on its own motion should have ordered an examination and hearing as to petitioner's mental...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Oliver
...Oliver's intelligent responses to questions put to him by the court provide further evidence of his competency. See Falu v. United States, 308 F.Supp. 1051, 1052 (S.D.N.Y.), affd., 421 F.2d 687 (2d Cir. Oliver's assertion of his history of heavy drug use called for more careful scrutiny of ......
-
State v. Lloyd
...or medication. This alone would tend to refute the defendant's allegations made in his motion to withdraw. 3 See Falu v. United States, 308 F.Supp. 1051, 1051-52 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 421 F.2d 687 (2d The defendant also claims that the trial court erred in imposing sentence without first order......
-
State v. Hilton
...36 L.Ed.2d 235, 243; Pepperling, 582 P.2d at 346, 35 St.Rep. at 1079; Turcotte, 164 Mont. at 428, 524 P.2d at 789. In Falu v. United States (S.D.N.Y.1969), 308 F.Supp. 1051, Aff'd 421 F.2d 687 (2d Cir.) the court "(The) contention (that he was not criminally responsible for the crime becaus......
-
Martin v. United States, Civ. A. No. 71-35.
...insanity at the time of the commission of a crime cannot be used as a basis for a motion to vacate under § 2255. Falu v. United States, 308 F.Supp. 1051 (S.D.N.Y.1969), affirmed per curiam, 421 F.2d 687 (2d Cir. 1969); Taylor v. United States, 282 F.2d 16 (8th Cir. 1960). In any event the p......