Nipp v. United States
| Citation | 324 F.2d 711 |
| Decision Date | 26 November 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 7222.,7222. |
| Parties | James William NIPP, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
No appearance for appellant.
Robert N. Chaffin, U. S. Atty., District of Wyoming, and Leroy V. Amen, Asst. U. S. Atty., District of Wyoming, on the brief, for appellee.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PICKETT, LEWIS, BREITENSTEIN, HILL, and SETH, Circuit Judges.
Appellant pleaded guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312. He seeks relief from the sentence imposed and asserts mental incompetence at the time of the guilty plea. The trial court treated his petition for coram nobis as an application under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and denied it without a hearing.
A claim of mental incompetence at the time of a guilty plea may be raised under § 2255 and, when raised, may not be disposed of without a hearing. See Ellison v. United States, 10 Cir., 324 F.2d 710, decided today. As in Ellison we direct the attention of the trial court to the admonitions appearing in Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 495-496, 82 S.Ct. 510, 7 L.Ed.2d 473, and in Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 20-23, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in conformity with the views here expressed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Floyd v. United States
...it held § 2255 unavailable to attack competency to stand trial); Ellison v. United States, 10 Cir., 1963, 324 F.2d 710; Nipp v. United States, 10 Cir., 1963, 324 F.2d 711. It is also significant to note that Whalem and the other cases from the D.C. Circuit cited in note 8, supra, for the pr......
-
United States v. Barnes, CR-80-118-D.
...Martinez v. United States, 344 F.2d 325 (10th Cir.1965); McDonald v. United States, 341 F.2d 378 (10th Cir.1965); Nipp v. United States, 324 F.2d 711 (10th Cir.1963); Ellison v. United States, 324 F.2d 710 (10th Cir.1963). An evidentiary hearing will be required where the above conditions a......
-
Eskridge v. United States, 158-70.
...(10th Cir.); Nunley v. United States, 364 F.2d 825 (10th Cir.); Ellison v. United States, 324 F. 2d 710 (10th Cir.); and Nipp v. United States, 324 F.2d 711 (10th Cir.). Moreover a finding made solely on a report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4244 does not supplant such a hearing since "the appel......
-
United States v. Miranda
...plea, a § 2255 motion may not be disposed of without a hearing. See McDonald v. United States, 10 Cir., 341 F.2d 378; Nipp v. United States, 10 Cir., 324 F.2d 711; and Ellison v. United States, 10 Cir., 324 F.2d 710. The district court sought to avoid the effect of those decisions by holdin......