Johnson v. United States, 12933.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 239 F.2d 698 |
| Parties | Clyde Milton JOHNSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 12933.,12933. |
| Decision Date | 15 December 1956 |
239 F.2d 698 (1956)
Clyde Milton JOHNSON, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 12933.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
December 15, 1956.
Clyde M. Johnson, per se.
Warren Olney, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Millsaps Fitzhugh, U. S. Atty., Edward N. Vaden, Asst. U. S. Atty., Memphis, Tenn., for appellee.
Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and MARTIN and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Clyde Milton Johnson, now serving sentence of forty years' imprisonment in Alcatraz for armed bank robbery in Memphis, Tennessee, has appealed from the denial of his motion to vacate sentence which was filed more than seven years after his conviction and sentence.
The appellant was jointly indicted with one John Eugene Anderson, who entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment. After holding up a branch of the First National Bank in Memphis, appellant and Anderson made their getaway with $44,000 in currency. About two weeks later, they were apprehended in Miami, Florida; and, at the time, were in possession of money stolen from the Memphis bank. While incarcerated in the county jail at Miami, from which appellant and Anderson were to be transported to Memphis, appellant — aided by his paramour, Billy Glaze, alias "Butcher Knife Billy" — escaped. He was again apprehended; but was taken only after he had resisted arrest in a running gun battle with F. B. I. Agents on the streets of Indianapolis, Indiana.
Appellant has a criminal record beginning as far back as 1943. He was incarcerated on life sentences in San Quentin and in Folsom prisons, from both of which he escaped. He has participated in the robbery of several financial institutions. His companion in the crime for which he is now serving sentence entered a plea of guilty; but appellant went to trial and was convicted by jury verdict. He did not take the witness stand in his own behalf.
In denying appellant's motion to vacate sentence, United States District Judge
Boyd stated in his written order his conviction that appellant had been fairly tried, was ably represented by highly experienced counsel, and that the judge was convinced of his guilt, it being developed at the trial that appellant at the time of his apprehension was in possession of some $40,000 in currency, some of which was still in the original wrappings of the bankAppellant's motion to vacate sentence was filed pursuant to section 2255, Title 28 United States Code. He relies upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. United States, Misc. Civ. No. 58-2.
...342 U.S. 205, 222-223, 72 S.Ct. 263, 96 L.Ed. 232; Stephens v. United States, 10 Cir., 246 F.2d 607; Johnson v. United States, 6 Cir., 239 F.2d 698, 699. Note 69 Harv. L.Rev. 1289, 1299. And if the only issues are issues of law the prisoner has no valid Constitutional claim to have the cour......
-
Johnson v. United States, 15552.
...contended that the appellant could have raised it on his previous § 2255 motion eight years ago. See Johnson v. United States, 239 F.2d 698 (6th Cir. 1956) cert. denied 354 U.S. 940, 77 S.Ct. 1404, 1 L.Ed.2d 1539 (1957). Of course, at another point in its brief, it contends inconsistently t......
-
Arredondo v. U.S., s. 96-2126
...it was not error for the district court to reject her allegation without holding an evidentiary hearing. Cf. Johnson v. United States, 239 F.2d 698, 699 (6th Cir.1956) (affirming district court's refusal to hold § 2255 hearing when petitioner's charges "reduce to incredible hearsay statemen......
-
Clemons v. Klee, Case No. 17-cv-10235
...of counsel claim related to this evidence. See Arredondo v. U.S., 178 F.3d 778, 782-83 (6th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. United States, 239 F.2d 698, 699 (6th Cir. 1956). Based on these two affidavits, petitioner brings a freestanding claim of actual innocence. However, because the Supreme Court ......