Scott v. United States, 14976.
| Citation | 342 F.2d 813 |
| Decision Date | 10 March 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 14976.,14976. |
| Parties | John SCOTT, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
John Scott, Jr., pro se.
Donald Horowitz, Asst. U. S. Atty., David M. Satz, Jr., U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J., for appellee.
Before McLAUGHLIN, FORMAN and GANEY, Circuit Judges.
The first count of the indictment before us charges a specific sale of heroin on a day certain at a particular place. It states the amount of heroin appellant allegedly sold. There were four additional counts to the indictment each of which charged successive separate offenses. Appellant was admittedly a convicted second offender under the federal narcotics law, 26 U.S.C. § 7237(e) (2). He was represented by counsel and his plea of guilty to the first count was accepted by the court. Three and one half years after that he made this 2255 motion to set aside his conviction and sentence because the name of the person who purchased the first count heroin from him was not mentioned in the count. Chief Judge Madden in the district court in an exhaustive opinion, held that the case records "conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief under his present petition." We agree with that ruling. We mention in passing that if the purchaser's name had been of any importance it could have been promptly obtained by a demand for particulars or by motion to strike the count. We are familiar with Lauer v. United States, 320 F.2d 187 (7 Cir. 1963). That decision is in no way controlling in this appeal.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Wolfson
...it could not have been more artfully and precisely drawn, Scott v. United States, 231 F.Supp. 360, 363 (D.C. N.J., 1964), aff'd 342 F.2d 813 (C.A. 3, 1965), but rather its adequacy is measured by whether it contains the elements of the offense intended to be charged, whether it sufficiently......
-
State v. M.L.
...reasonable notice of the act or acts he is called upon to defend. Scott v. United States, 231 F.Supp. 360 (D.C.N.J.1964), aff'd, 342 F.2d 813 (3d Cir.1965); State v. Torrance, 41 N.J.Super. 445, 125 A.2d 403 (App.Div.1956); see State v. Bonaccurso, 227 N.J.Super. 159, 545 A.2d 853 (Law That......
-
People v. Adams
...charge against him or better to prepare his defense.' People v. Patrick, 38 Ill.2d 255, 260, 230 N.E.2d 843, 846; see, Scott v. United States (3rd cir. 1965), 342 F.2d 813. Next the defendant argues that he was erroneously denied his constitutional right to have counsel appointed for him at......
-
Petition of Barry
...District Court, in its Opinion, cited in support of its holding Scott v. United States, 231 F.Supp. 360, 362 (D.N.J. 1964), aff'd 342 F.2d 813 (3 Cir. 1965) where it was held that where one has "voluntarily and understandingly" entered a plea of guilty to an indictment "the plea of guilty n......