Martin v. United States, 71-1952.
| Decision Date | 28 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1952.,71-1952. |
| Citation | 463 F.2d 220 |
| Parties | James G. MARTIN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
James G. Martin, pro se.
Richard L. Thornburgh, Blair A. Griffith, Asst. U. S. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.
Before ALDISERT, JAMES ROSEN and HUNTER, Circuit Judges.
Submitted June 19, 1972 Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6).
This appeal from a motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 represents the third proceeding in this court brought by appellant, convicted of four counts for violations of 21 U.S.C. § 174 and 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a). After the conviction was affirmed on appeal, United States v. Martin, 386 F.2d 213 (3d Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 862, 89 S.Ct. 142, 21 L.Ed.2d 130 (1968), appellant moved, under F.R.Crim.P. 35, for correction of the sentence. Following a hearing, the concurrent sentences imposed on counts 2 and 4 were vacated. United States v. Martin, 302 F.Supp. 498 (W.D.Pa.1969), aff'd, 428 F.2d 1140 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 960, 91 S.Ct. 361, 27 L.Ed.2d 269 (1970).
In this appeal from the denial of his motion to vacate sentence, appellant contends (1) that he was under the influence of narcotics at the time of his arrest, and was incapable of formulating the criminal intent necessary to commit the offenses charged, and (2) that due to the effects of narcotics, he was mentally incompetent at the time of his trial and sentencing.1
We have carefully considered all of the contentions presented by appellant, and have concluded that there was a proper disposition by the district court in the well reasoned opinion of Chief Judge Marsh, 327 F.Supp. 126 (W.D. Pa.1971). Judge Marsh noted that at appellant's bail hearing, appellant introduced no evidence of drug addiction at the time of his arrest. Quite to the contrary, appellant's counsel argued at the hearing:
The evidence introduced and made available by the Government indicated that he is no longer addicted, and he apparently no longer has this problem, so the rationale of his having to go back into the peddling business isn\'t a logical conclusion at this stage. In fact, the Government has effectively proven this for us.
Later, his counsel again stated:
We have substantially proven that he is no longer subject to addiction. . . .
As for appellant's claim that he was mentally incompetent to stand trial due to the influence of drugs, Chief Judge Marsh stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Langston v. U.S., CIV. A.2000-CV-1619.
...that "[t]he exception adduced here ... is designedly a limited one confined to the facts of this case."); but see Martin v. United States, 463 F.2d 220, 221 (3rd Cir.1972) (reasoning that "[t]he burden rested on the petitioner to establish by evidence his asserted mental incompetence at the......
-
Stokes v. United States, H 77-C-407.
...Bruce v. Estelle, 536 F.2d 1051 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1053, 97 S.Ct. 767, 50 L.Ed.2d 770 (1977); Martin v. United States, 463 F.2d 220, 221 (3d Cir. 1972); Johnston v. United States, 292 F.2d 51, 53 (10th Cir. 1961); Hayes v. United States, 468 F.Supp. 179, 184-85 (S.D.Tex......
-
U.S. v. Hollis
...Cf. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 183, 95 S.Ct. 896, 989, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975).5 The district court cited Martin v. United States, 463 F.2d 220 (3d Cir. 1972), for the proposition that in a § 2255 proceeding the burden of proving incompetence rests upon the moving party. In Martin, the ......
-
U.S. v. Martin
...28 U.S.C A. § 2255, the petitioner bears the burden establish "with specific evidence" that relief is warranted. See Martin v. U.S., 463 F.2d 220, 221 (3rd Cir.1972). In Martin, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals found that a Section 2255 petitioner who had raised the issue of mental incomp......