Kagen v. United States

• Decision Date: 19 April 1966
• Docket Number: No. 8554.,8554.
• Citation: 360 F.2d 30
• Parties: Bruce KAGEN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

360 F.2d 30 (1966)

Bruce KAGEN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 8554.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

April 19, 1966.

Roger R. Viets, Topeka, Kan., for appellant.

Benjamin E. Franklin, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.

Before HILL and SETH, Circuit Judges, and BOHANON, District Judge.

HILL, Circuit Judge.

In an effort to attack his recent federal conviction of post office burglary, appellant filed a letter with the trial court seeking relief, "as a Motion to Vacate and/or Error Coram Nobis." The trial court considered the matter as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255,¹ appointed counsel for petitioner, conducted an evidentiary hearing, made findings of fact and conclusions of law and denied the relief sought. This appeal followed.

While in state custody awaiting trial on a forgery charge in Johnson County, Kansas, appellant was interrogated by two federal postal officials and admitted implication in the burglary of the Glenpool, Oklahoma, Post Office on June 10, 1964. On July 8, 1964, which was the day after the confession, a federal detainer was filed with the Johnson County, Kansas officials following the filing of a complaint in the Northern District of Oklahoma.

Before further federal activity occurred appellant pled guilty on July 15, 1964, to the state charge of forgery and was sentenced to the state penitentiary for a period of not less than two nor more than ten years. The federal detainer was transferred to the state penitentiary.

On September 3, 1964, appellant was indicted by a grand jury in the Northern District of Oklahoma for the post office burglary offense. On September 14 he signed a consent to transfer the case under Rule 20 to the District of Kansas, stating he wished to enter a plea of guilty. The transfer was completed, counsel was appointed for appellant and at his arraignment on September 30, 1964, he was convicted based upon his plea of guilty.² On November 14, 1964, Kagen was sentenced to three years confinement, said sentence to run consecutive to the state court sentence he was then serving.

The court below determined that appellant is presently serving the state sentence. He has not begun to serve the federal sentence which he is seeking to attack and vacate. Therefore, it is clear that he may not avail himself of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for that remedy is available only to attack a sentence under which a prisoner is then in custody. It cannot be employed to attack a sentence which is not being served. Johnson v. Taylor, 10th Cir., 347 F.2d 365; Williams v. United States, 10th Cir., 267 F.2d 559, cert. denied, 361 U.S. 867, 80 S.Ct. 128, 4 L.Ed.2d 106. Hence, if any relief is to be had, it must be by way of coram nobis, which appellant sought alternatively in his letter to the trial court. See United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248; McDonald v. United States, 10th Cir., 356 F.2d 980, and cases cited therein; Johnson v. United States, 5th Cir., 344 F.2d 401; Igo v. United States, 10th Cir., 303 F.2d 317; Williams v. United States, supra. Treating the record then as presenting a motion for a writ of error coram nobis, we believe the trial court's jurisdiction was properly invoked. However, this extraordinary remedy should be allowed only when the circumstances compel such action to achieve justice. United States v. Morgan, supra. A careful review of the record leads us to conclude no injustice has occurred.

Appellant's main contentions are that he had no counsel during interrogation, that he was never taken before a United States Commissioner, that his confession was coerced, and in this regard, that his plea of guilty was involuntary for fear that his coerced confession would be used against him.

The trial court expressly found that no promises or threats were made to induce the confession and further that Kagen, while represented by counsel, voluntarily and understandingly entered the plea of guilty. These findings are amply supported in the record. While appellant contends that he...