Michener v. United States
| Decision Date | 01 November 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 13909.,13909. |
| Citation | 177 F.2d 422 |
| Parties | MICHENER v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Elliott W. Michener, in propria persona, on brief for appellant.
John W. Graff, United States Attorney, and James J. Giblin, Assistant United States Attorney, St. Paul, Minn., on brief for appellee.
Before GARDNER, Chief Judge, and WOODROUGH and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is from an order denying appellant's motion to vacate sentence and judgment entered against him on May 12, 1936, in the District Court of Minnesota, and granting appellee's motion to dismiss appellant's motion. The parties will be referred to as they were designated in the trial court. The grounds for this motion were substantially as follows: (1) Defendant's plea of guilty to Count 2 was obtained by means of misrepresentations made by the Assistant United States Attorney. These misrepresentations were to the effect that "if defendant pleaded guilty he would doubtless be allowed to begin service of his sentence in a Federal penitentiary instead of being returned to Wisconsin," and that defendant would not be permitted to plead guilty to a part of the indictment but only to the whole indictment. (2) Defendant was deprived of his constitutional rights to due process because of misstatements made by the Assistant United States Attorney before the trial to the effect that defendant had been fully informed of his constitutional rights. (3) The trial court failed in its solemn duty to protect the constitutional rights of the defendant appearing without counsel for the avowed purpose of pleading guilty. Specifically, the trial court failed to determine whether there was a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, failed to consider the sufficiency of the indictment, and failed to explain the indictment and to advise the defendant that it was possible for him to be guilty under the first count without being guilty under the second count and that he could so plead; neither did the court advise him of the penalties which could be imposed. (4) Defendant's plea of guilty to Count 2 was not understandingly or voluntarily made. In support of his motion defendant attached thereto copy of the indictment under which he had been sentenced, copy of journal entry showing his plea of guilty, copy of the judgment and sentence, his own affidavit, certified copy of the transcript of the testimony of the Assistant United States Attorney who was alleged to have made the misrepresentation, as taken in another proceeding, affidavit of Richard C. Franseen, and copy of letter from the United States Marshal addressed to defendant. The plaintiff offered no evidence.
The court in deciding the case filed no opinion, nor did it make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the issues presented.
Section 2255, Title 28 U.S.C.A., provides that a prisoner under sentence of a court of the United States claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court imposing the sentence to vacate it, set it aside, or correct it, and that such motion may be made at any time. The Act then provides, "Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon the United States attorney, grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto."
It is contended by defendant that his plea of guilty was obtained by misrepresentations and that he was prejudiced by the statements made by the Assistant United States Attorney which induced his plea of guilty to both counts of the indictment; that defendant was deprived of his constitutional rights because the Government attorney erroneously advised the court before sentence that he had advised defendant of his constitutional rights; that defendant did not intelligently, competently and intentionally waive assistance of counsel at the time of arraignment, and that defendant was prejudiced by the fact that he did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bishop v. United States
...either in the court\'s opinion or separately, which are sufficient to indicate the factual basis for the ultimate conclusion."17 In Michener v. United States, the Eighth Circuit ascribed the following purposes to § 2255's requirement of findings: "(1) to enable the appellate court to determ......
-
Swepston v. United States
...denied 350 U.S. 1003, 76 S.Ct. 550, 100 L. Ed. 866; Godwin v. United States, 8 Cir., 1951, 191 F.2d 932. See Michener v. United States, 8 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 422; 20 A.L.R.2d 993, 996. Such is the situation here. The District Court's conclusion that there was no merit in any of the grounds......
-
Michener v. United States, 13909.
...to the trial court with directions to make such findings and conclusions on the record as it then stood without retrial. Michener v. United States, 8 Cir., 177 F.2d 422. Our mandate was complied with and the record now includes the required findings and conclusions. Supplemental briefs have......
-
Carnes v. United States
...United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 72 S.Ct. 263, 96 L.Ed. 232; United States v. Cook, 7 Cir., 208 F.2d 114; Michener v. United States, 8 Cir., 177 F.2d 422. From the record as a whole, including the showing that a formal order was signed at a later date,1 we conclude that the Judge did ......