Hill v. United States

Citation186 F. Supp. 441
Decision Date14 January 1960
Docket Number10114.,Crim. No. 10113
PartiesJames Francis HILL, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Eastern District of Tennessee

Joseph Roberts, Chattanooga, Tenn., for petitioner.

John C. Crawford, U. S. Atty., Knoxville, Tenn., for respondent.

ROBERT L. TAYLOR, District Judge.

Petitioner, James Francis Hill, has filed another motion, supported by brief, to vacate the sentences in these cases. The motion was filed on October 21, 1959 and amended November 16, 1959. The motion, as amended, was filed pursuant to Section 2255 of Title 28 U.S.C. Upon receipt of the motion, the Clerk was directed to turn over the files to the United States District Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee for response. The response was filed on January 7, 1960 and the matter is now before the Court for determination.

The sentences were pronounced by Judge Leslie R. Darr on June 4, 1954. Petitioner first filed a motion to vacate, based on Section 2255 of Title 28 U.S.C., on October 18, 1954, which was dismissed by the District Judge and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 6 Cir., 223 F.2d 699, certiorari denied 350 U.S. 867, 76 S.Ct. 113, 100 L.Ed. 768.

Another motion was filed on March 15, 1956 and again denied by the District Court and the judgment affirmed, 6 Cir., 238 F.2d 84, certiorari denied 352 U.S. 1007, 77 S.Ct. 569, 1 L.Ed.2d 551.

On December 19, 1957 still another motion to vacate was denied by the District Court, but on appeal was remanded for a hearing on factual issues. 6 Cir., 256 F.2d 957.

The hearing was held pursuant to the mandate of the Court of Appeals in Chattanooga beginning September 10, 1958 and ending the following day. At the conclusion of this hearing, at which the Judge who has prepared this memorandum and order presided, detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law were made and the motion dismissed. Tr. 265 et seq. The action of the District Court was affirmed by the Appellate Court. 6 Cir., 268 F.2d 203, certiorari denied 361 U.S. 834, 80 S.Ct. 110, 4 L.Ed.2d 93.

Petitioner's principal claim in the September 1958 hearing was that the employees of the Hamilton County Jail, in which he was incarcerated for a short time following the rendition of the sentences, and the agents, representatives and custodians of the Atlanta Prison, that being the institution to which he was taken from the Hamilton County Jail, refused him the right to give notice of his appeal during the ten-day period that followed the action of the District Court in overruling his motion for a new trial.

In the present motion, petitioner claims that he gave notice of his appeal within the ten-day period to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee and the Clerk failed to file it or bring it to the attention of the Court.

Petitioner's brief in support of the motion indicated that petitioner got the idea that the District Court felt that he wrote or may have written a letter to the Clerk, within the ten-day period as provided by the applicable rule, giving notice of his appeal from the sentences. The pertinent language used by the Court is:

"He (petitioner) had access to pencils and paper to write and mail letters from the prison during this period, one of which was mailed to Judge Darr on June 14, 1954, and filed as Exhibit No. 1 in the record. Letters of this character could have been written by Hill to the clerk during the ten-day period after the motion
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Hill v. United States, 68
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 22, 1962
    ...any information in mitigation of punishment.' The District Court denied the motion without explicitly discussing the Rule 32(a) claim. 186 F.Supp. 441. The Court of Appeals affirmed, per curiam, 282 F.2d 352. We granted certiorari 'limited to the question of whether petitioner may raise his......
  • United States v. Hill
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • July 2, 1963
    ...States, 6 Cir., 238 F.2d 84; Hill v. United States, 6 Cir., 256 F.2d 957; Hill v. United States, 6 Cir., 268 F.2d 203; Hill v. United States, D.C., 186 F.Supp. 441; Hill v. United States, 6 Cir., 282 F.2d 352; Hill v. United States, 365 U.S. 841, 81 S.Ct. 806, 5 L.Ed.2d 808; Hill v. United ......
  • Hill v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
    • November 30, 1964
    ...80 S.Ct. 110, 4 L.Ed.2d 93. A fourth petition was filed upon October 21, 1959, and dismissed as without merit by the District Court. D.C., 186 F.Supp. 441. Upon appeal this was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 6 Cir., 282 F.2d 352. Thereupon certiorari was allowed by the Supreme Court, lim......
  • United States v. ONE PARCEL OF LAND, ETC.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • April 7, 1960
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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