Richardson v. United States, 15110.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
| Citation | 217 F.2d 696 |
| Docket Number | No. 15110.,15110. |
| Parties | Jake RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 21 December 1954 |
217 F.2d 696 (1954)
Jake RICHARDSON, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 15110.
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
December 21, 1954.
Jake Richardson, pro se.
Edward L. Scheufler, U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., and Joseph L. Flynn, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Joseph, Mo., for appellee.
Before GARDNER, Chief Judge, and COLLET and VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order denying motion of defendant (appellant), made pursuant to section 2255, Title 28 United States Code, to vacate sentence, motion of defendant to withdraw plea of guilty, motion for habeas corpus ad testificandum and writ of attachment, and supplements thereto, and motion for reconsideration of each of said motions.
The defendant in his brief makes the following points:
"Question One: Whether or not, the arrest of the appellant by Federal narcotic agents on March 16, 1953, was unlawful and violated the protection guaranteed him Amendment Four and Five to the Federal Constitution. Whether or not, in violation of Amendment Five to the Federal Constitution the arresting Federal narcotic agents herein involved failed to comply with the requirements of 18 U.S.C.A.Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 5(a) after arresting this appellant. And if so, did the trial court herein acquire valid jurisdiction over the instant case herein involved?
"Question Two: Whether or not, in a trial upon an information set forth in three counts, sales of heroin hydrochloride; this appellant was denied his Constitutional rights conferred under Amendments Five and Six to the Federal Constitution; (1) When the trial court failed to comply with the statutory requirements of 18 U.S.C.A.Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rules 7(b), 10 and 11, divested itself of jurisdiction by failing to complete the court: and if so, whether or not, this is grounds for 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255?
"Question Three on appeal herein is, whether or not, in a hearing without a jury upon motions filed in the trial court in conformity with 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 and 18 U.S.C.A. Foll. 688, Rule 11(a) Criminal Rules 1933, in which events were alleged to infringe the Constitutional rights of this appellant do or do not appear on the face of the record of his conviction, and where this appellants motions raised matters of facts dehors the record, the trial court herein was required to determine the issues, make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto and produce this appellant in court to be present at the hearing to testify and offer evidence in his own behalf, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 and 28 U.S.C.A.Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 52(a)?"
The defendant was arrested on March 16, 1953, without a warrant by narcotic agents. On March 17, 1953, a complaint was filed, a warrant was issued, and the defendant was arrested thereunder and brought before the United States Commissioner. On March 20, 1953, defendant appeared in open court with Kenneth Simon, a competent attorney, appearing for him. After due explanation by the court, he waived indictment in writing, and an information in three counts was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shelton v. United States, 16354.
...v. United States, 5 Cir., 216 F.2d 112, 113; Friedman v. United States, 8 Cir., 200 F.2d 690, 696; Richardson v. United States, 8 Cir., 217 F.2d 696, 699; Haywood v. United States, D.C. S.D.N.Y., 127 F.Supp. 485, 488; cf. possibly contra, United States v. Nostrand Corporation, 2 Cir., 168 F......
-
United States v. Bey, 73-1785.
...1972); Dell v. State of Louisiana, 468 F.2d 324 (5th Cir. 1972); Silva v. Cox, 351 F.2d 61 (10th Cir. 1965); Richardson v. United States, 217 F.2d 696 (8th Cir. Considering all of these circumstances, on the state of the record before us, the District Court's finding cannot be sustained. IV......
-
Bistram v. United States, 15872.
...v. United States, 8 Cir., 226 F.2d 812, certiorari denied, 350 U.S. 971, 76 S.Ct. 445, 100 L.Ed. 843; Richardson v. United States, 8 Cir., 217 F.2d 696; United States v. Rosenberg, 2 Cir., 200 F.2d 666, 671, certiorari denied, 345 U.S. 965, 73 S.Ct. 949, 97 L. Ed. 1384, rehearing denied, 34......
-
Burleson v. United States, 13782.
...Braman, and Redrock, Oklahoma. 4 Mr. Simon was correctly described as "a competent attorney" in Richardson v. United States, 8 Cir., 217 F.2d 696 (1954). That appraisal was reaffirmed in Cain v. United States, 8 Cir., 271 F.2d 337, 339 (1959). This Court shares the expressed view of the Cou......