Odom v. United States

Decision Date30 March 1972
Docket NumberNo. 71-1447.,71-1447.
Citation455 F.2d 159
PartiesBerlin Acey ODOM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Laurence W. Kessenick, of Hassard, Bonnington, Rogers & Huber, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.

Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., Eric A. Nobles, Chief, Crim. Div., Stephen V. Wilson, David P. Curnow, Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee.

Before MERRILL, CARTER and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from an order denying Odom's application for relief under § 2255, Title 28, United States Code. The conviction under which Odom is serving time was affirmed by the same panel of this court now sitting on the case. United States v. Odom (9 Cir. 1970) 423 F.2d 875.

Odom raises three questions on appeal: (1) Should the trial judge have disqualified himself from presiding over the 2255 hearing? (2) Did Odom establish he was mentally incompetent to waive counsel at trial? (3) Does Wade v. United States (9 Cir. 1970) 426 F.2d 64 require a new trial in this case? We affirm.

This circuit has held that the trial or sentencing judge is not disqualified from hearing and deciding a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C., § 2255. Dukes v. United States (9 Cir. 1969) 407 F.2d 863, cert. denied, 396 U.S. 897, 90 S.Ct. 193, 24 L.Ed.2d 174; King v. United States (9 Cir. 1968) 402 F.2d 58.

The trial court held a hearing, took evidence on the mental competency issue and found against Odom. His findings are not clearly erroneous.

The only substantial issue posed in the present appeal involves the limited retroactivity of Wade v. United States (9 Cir. 1970) 426 F.2d 64. That case established new law for the circuit on insanity. It was decided on March 30, 1970 and held that the decision applied to "convictions which have not become final as of the date of this decision."

In United States v. Odom, supra, the opinion was filed on March 24, 1969 and the re-hearing denied on April 21, 1970. The decision approved the use of instructions to the jury on insanity, in use prior to the Wade decision. At first blush it might seem that Wade, supra, controls the present case. However, rightfully or wrongfully, this court decided the Odom case and the judgment became final.

The law in this circuit is clear that when a matter has been decided adversely on appeal from a conviction, it cannot be litigated again on a 2255 motion. Stein v. United States (9 Cir. 1968) 390 F.2d 625; Fiano v. United States (9 Cir. 1961) 291 F.2d 113, cert. denied, 368 U.S. 943, 82 S.Ct. 380, 7 L.Ed.2d 340. The decision in United...

To continue reading

Request your trial
80 cases
  • United States v. Mogler
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • September 20, 2021
    ... ... Stein v. U.S., 390 F.2d 625, 626 (9th Cir. 1968) ... “The law in this circuit is clear that when a matter ... has been decided adversely on appeal from a conviction, it ... cannot be litigated again on a 2255 motion.” Odom ... v. United States, 455 F.2d 159, 160 (9th Cir. 1972) ... Accordingly, Movant is precluded from relitigating his Ground ... 26 claim in his Amended Motion because the Ninth Circuit ... decided the claim on direct appeal ... 2.Grounds ... 27 through ... ...
  • Fabricant v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • October 8, 2015
    ...on appeal from a conviction cannot be relitigated on a § 2255 motion absent changed circumstances of law or fact. Odom v. United States, 455 F.2d 159, 160 (9th Cir. 1972); Olmstead v. United States, 55 F.3d 316, 319 (7th Cir. 1995). Similarly, "[h]abeas relief is an extraordinary remedy and......
  • Davis v. United States 8212 1454
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 10, 1974
    ...that 'the new law, or change in law, rule is not applied in this circuit under circumstances such as here presented. Odom v. United States, supra (9 Cir., 455 F.2d 159).'11 Again one would suppose that the dispute had reached its end, but this Court today decrees otherwise, remanding it for......
  • United States v. Hunt
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • November 7, 2019
    ...a matter has been decided adversely on appeal from a conviction, it cannot be litigated again on a [§] 2255 motion." Odom v. United States, 455 F.2d 159, 160 (9th Cir. 1972); see also United States v. Scrivner, 189 F.3d 825, 828 (9th Cir. 1999) ("In this case, Scrivner's Fifth Amendment cla......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT