Hill v. United States, 13741.
| Decision Date | 23 June 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 13741.,13741. |
| Citation | 268 F.2d 203 |
| Parties | James Francis HILL, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
James J. Ryan, Cincinnati, Ohio (appointed by the court), for appellant. James Francis Hill, in pro. per., on the brief.
James M. Meek, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chattanooga, Tenn., and John C. Crawford, Jr., James M. Meek, John F. Dugger, Knoxville, Tenn., on the brief, for appellee.
Before McALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and CECIL, District Judge.
Appellant was indicted, tried by jury, and convicted under separate indictments for transporting in interstate commerce a stolen motor vehicle and also a person who had theretofore been kidnapped and held for ransom. He received a sentence of twenty years for the kidnapping offense and three years for the motor vehicle offense, to run non-currently. No appeal was taken.
On October 18, 1954, appellant filed proceedings in the District Court to vacate the judgment under Sec. 2255, Title 28, U.S.Code, which the District Judge dismissed. This Court affirmed. Hill v. United States, 6 Cir., 223 F.2d 699, certiorari denied, 350 U.S. 867, 76 S.Ct. 113, 100 L.Ed. 768. The opinion in that case gives the factual background of this litigation which is now before us for the fourth time. See also: Hill v. United States, 6 Cir., 238 F.2d 84, and Hill v. United States, 6 Cir., 256 F.2d 957.
Hill v. United States, supra, 256 F.2d 957, was another proceeding to vacate sentence under Sec. 2255, Title 28, U.S. Code, on the alleged ground that Hill was prevented by government agents from taking a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction. The District Judge dismissed this proceeding without a hearing. This Court held that he was entitled to a hearing on this new factual issue, and remanded the case to the District Court for such a hearing and findings.
Following remand, the District Judge held a full hearing, receiving the testimony of 18 witnesses, and found that no employee of the county jail or government agent or custodian of the Atlanta prison had refused the right to appellant to give notice of his appeal. He denied the motion to vacate, from which ruling the present appeal is taken.
A review of the evidence convinces us that not only is the finding not clearly erroneous, but is also supported by the great weight of the evidence.
Appellant's court-appointed counsel on this appeal, in his well prepared brief and oral argument, contends that in particular circumstances the fact that government agents do not affirmatively block a defendant's attempt to appeal is not decisive of the question, in that in such cases the representatives of the Government are charged with an affirmative duty to aid an indigent prisoner in exercising his legal rights, including the duty to remove from the mind of such a prisoner what may appear to him to be positive prohibitions upon his exercise of such rights. He urges upon us that such a duty, which was not performed, existed in this case requiring affirmative action on the part of government custodial agents by reason of appellant's unstable mental condition and his fear, even though not justified, of disciplinary action against him if he attempted to prepare legal papers in prison. Reliance is placed upon Boykin v. Huff, 73 App.D.C. 378, 121 F.2d 865, 870.
Although there is broad general language in the opinion in Boykin v. Huff, supra, supporting appellant's contention, the ruling was not that the government agents failed to perform an affirmative duty, but that the trial judge in effect, through correspondence with the defendant, prevented him from exercising his right of appeal, and that, in any event, a letter written by the defendant and delivered to the trial judge within the time allowed for an appeal was legally sufficient to constitute the necessary appeal....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. United States, 68
...6 Cir., 256 F.2d 957. After a hearing before a different district judge, the motion was again denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 6 Cir., 268 F.2d 203. 2. The majority of the Court in the Green case did not decide whether the issue of a Rule 32(a) violation could be raised on collateral ......
-
NLRB v. Ferraro's Bakery, Inc., 16585.
...v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co., 289 F.2d 726, 730 (C.A.7), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 835, 82 S.Ct. 61, 7 L.Ed.2d 36; Hill v. United States, 268 F.2d 203 (C.A.6), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 854, 80 S.Ct. 110, 4 L.Ed.2d 93; Deena Products Co. v. United Brick & Clay Workers of America, 195 ......
-
Hill v. United States
...352 (C.A. 6), aff., 368 U.S. 424, 82 S.Ct. 468, 7 L.Ed.2d 417, rehearing denied, 369 U.S. 808, 82 S.Ct. 640, 7 L.Ed.2d 556; Hill v. United States, 268 F.2d 203 (C.A. 6), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 854, 80 S.Ct. 110, 4 L.Ed.2d 93; Hill v. United States, 256 F.2d 957 (C.A. 6); Hill v. United Stat......
-
United States v. Hill
...States, 6 Cir., 223 F. 2d 699; Hill v. United 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......