Stephens v. United States, 5586.
| Decision Date | 01 July 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 5586.,5586. |
| Citation | 246 F.2d 607 |
| Parties | June Heyward STEPHENS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
No appearance for appellant.
Philip R. Douglas, Asst. U. S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl. (Paul W. Cress, U. S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, PICKETT and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.
Appellant is presently incarcerated at Alcatraz, California, under sentence by the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. On October 31, 1956, he filed a Motion in the Nature of a Writ of Error Coram Nobis, alleging that he was coerced into waiving his right to grand jury indictment, that his plea of guilty was obtained by threats, promises and coercion, and that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel. The trial court, properly treating the motion as one made under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, reviewed the record of the original hearing and denied the motion without a further hearing.
It is immediately apparent that appellant's motion alleges but bald conclusions unsupported by allegation of fact and is therefore legally insufficient. The trial court may properly deny the motion without hearing, United States v. Sturm, 7 Cir., 180 F.2d 413, certiorari denied 339 U.S. 986, 70 S.Ct. 1008, 94 L. Ed. 1388, or require the movant to amend his motion to substantiate with designation of fact the broad assertions of the motion before determining whether or not possible grounds for relief exist under sec. 2255. If the motion is denied without hearing because of insufficiency of pleading a further motion, if legally sufficient, should not be considered repetitious.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanders v. United States
...F.2d 416 (1958), although the better course might have been to direct petitioner to amend his motion, see Stephens v. United States, 246 F.2d 607 (C.A.10th Cir., 1957) (per curiam). But the denial, thus based, was not on the merits. It was merely a ruling that petitioner's pleading was defi......
-
Green v. United States
...357, 368-369, 77 S.Ct. 481, 1 L.Ed.2d 393; United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 222-223, 72 S.Ct. 263, 96 L.Ed. 232; Stephens v. United States, 10 Cir., 246 F.2d 607; Johnson v. United States, 6 Cir., 239 F.2d 698, 699. Note 69 Harv. L.Rev. 1289, 1299. And if the only issues are issues of......
-
Bistram v. United States
...United States v. Mathison, 7 Cir., 1958, 256 F.2d 803, certiorari denied 358 U.S. 857, 79 S.Ct. 77, 3 L.Ed.2d 91; Stephens v. United States, 10 Cir., 1957, 246 F.2d 607. Petitioner's motion is not sufficient to meet the burden required under Sec. That Section also gives the sentencing court......
-
United States v. Tribote, 105
...U.S. v. Rosenberg, 200 F.2d 666, 668 (2nd Cir. 1952), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 965, 73 S.Ct. 949, 97 L.Ed. 1384 (1953); Stephens v. U.S., 246 F.2d 607 (10th Cir. 1957). We are in agreement that appellant was entitled to the assistance of counsel when sentence was imposed. Davis v. U.S., 226 F......