Gordon v. United States, 5712.

• Decision Date: 18 December 1957
• Docket Number: No. 5712.,5712.
• Citation: 250 F.2d 676
• Parties: Coy George GORDON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

250 F.2d 676 (1957)

Coy George GORDON, Appellant, v.UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 5712.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

December 18, 1957.

No appearance for appellant, submitted on brief, pro se.

A. Pratt Kesler, U. S. Atty., Salt Lake City, Utah, for appellee.

Before HUXMAN, MURRAH and BREITENSTEIN, United States Circuit Judges.

HUXMAN, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court of Utah, denying appellant's motion under 28 U. S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate a judgment of conviction and sentence imposed thereon on the ground that the judgment and sentence were void, because of appellant's insanity at the time of the trial.

Appellant, Coy George Gordon, and Hoyt Cecil Watson were charged by information with violating Section 2115,Title 18 U.S.C.A.Both appeared before the court for arraignment and, not being represented by counsel, competent counsel was appointed for them.Thereafter, both appeared in court with counsel and, being fully advised of their constitutional rights, entered pleas of guilty.Imposition of sentence was deferred for a pre-sentence report.After receipt of such report and after statements made by defendants in open court as well as by their attorney, the court imposed the sentence herein challenged.The court sentenced appellant to the custody of the Attorney General to serve a term of three and one-half years in a federal penitentiary.

The grounds urged for reversal are that appellant was in fact insane at the time of trial and that the court was, therefore, without jurisdiction to try him.It is without dispute that appellant's mental status was not put in issue at any stage of the trial proceedings.At no time prior to the imposition of sentence was it suggested to the trial court that appellant was insane.That issue arose only after he was committed to the penitentiary to serve the sentence.Shortly after his arrival at the penitentiary, appellant was declared insane under 18 U. S.C.A. § 4241.

Appellant's subsidiary contention that the court erred in disposing of the motion without granting a hearing is not well taken.The only question was a question of law and for a consideration of that question under Section 2255 a hearing was not necessary.

Had the issue of insanity been presented or called to the attention of the court, it would have been necessary for the court to determine that issue before proceeding with the trial.¹But, as pointed out, this was not...