Moss v. United States, 3957.
| Decision Date | 31 October 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 3957.,3957. |
| Citation | 177 F.2d 438 |
| Parties | MOSS v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Donald S. Stubbs, Denver, Colo., for appellant.
Cleon A. Summers, United States Attorney, Muskogee, Okl. (Paul Gotcher, Assistant United States Attorney, McAlester, Okl., was with him on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRATTON and HUXMAN, Circuit Judges.
The first count in the indictment in this case charged that appellant and three others broke into and entered a bank with the intent to commit larceny therein, and the second count charged that they took, stole, and carried away money and checks belonging to the bank with the intent to deprive the bank of the use and benefit thereof and to convert the same to their own use and benefit. Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the indictment and was sentenced to imprisonment for fifteen years on the first count and ten years on the second, to run concurrently. After entering upon service of the sentence appellant instituted a proceeding in habeas corpus in which the validity of the sentence was challenged. The petition for the writ was denied, and the judgment was affirmed. Moss v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 167 F.2d 683, certiorari denied, 334 U.S. 860, 68 S.Ct. 1519, 92 L.Ed. 1780. Appellant filed in the criminal case a motion to set aside and vacate the judgment and sentence. The United States responded. Appellant was produced in open court; evidence was heard; findings of fact were made; and an order was entered denying the motion. About two months later, appellant filed in the case a pleading denominated application for a writ of error coram nobis and motion to set aside and vacate the judgment and sentence. The United States responded. The court entered an order denying the application and motion. The order of denial recited among other things that appellant had raised and presented in the former motion substantially the same matters and things of which complaint was then presently being made, and that the court was not required to entertain successive motions seeking the same or similar relief. The appeal now before us was taken from that order.
One question is decisive of the case and eliminates need to consider others. By the application for the writ of error coram nobis and motion to vacate the judgment and sentence, appellant attacked the validity of the judgment and sentence on several grounds. He attacked it on some of the same grounds in the proceeding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Hayman
...90 F.Supp. 261, affirmed, 10 Cir., 1950, 184 F.2d 384; Hurst v. United States, 10 Cir., 1950, 180 F.2d 835; Moss v. United States, 10 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 438; Doll v. United States, 10 Cir., 1949, 175 F.2d 884; Payne v. United States, D.C.M.D.Pa.1949, 85 F.Supp. 404; United States v. Bowen......
-
Belton v. United States
...is within the sound discretion of the District Judge whether a second motion seeking similar relief should be entertained. Moss v. United States, 10 Cir., 177 F.2d 438; Shobe v. United States, 8 Cir., 220 F.2d 928, 929; United States v. Brown, 7 Cir., 207 F.2d 310; Bickford v. United States......
-
Bistram v. United States
...is within the sound discretion of the District Judge whether a second motion seeking similar relief should be entertained. Moss v. United States, 10 Cir., 177 F.2d 438; Shobe v. United States, 8 Cir., 220 F.2d 928, 929; United States v. Brown, 7 Cir., 207 F.2d 310; Bickford v. United States......
-
Way v. United States, Civ. A. No. 7260.
...the same grounds as the first, the Court may, in its discretion, refuse to consider the second or successive petition. Moss v. United States, 10 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 438; Dunn v. United States, 6 Cir., 1956, 234 F.2d 219; Long v. United States, 6 Cir., 1957, 245 F.2d 871; Daniels v. United ......