Sweeney v. United States, No. 14901.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtDUFFY, CASTLE and KILEY, Circuit
Citation353 F.2d 10
PartiesWilliam A. SWEENEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Decision Date21 October 1965
Docket NumberNo. 14901.

353 F.2d 10 (1965)

William A. SWEENEY, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 14901.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

October 21, 1965.


Edward H. Hickey, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner-appellant.

Steven L. Larson, William W. Brackett, Chicago, Ill., as amicus curiae.

Richard P. Stein, U. S. Atty., Robert W. Geddes, Asst. U. S. Atty., Edward F. Kelly, Asst. U. S. Atty., Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis, Ind., for respondent-appellee.

Before DUFFY, CASTLE and KILEY, Circuit Judges.

KILEY, Circuit Judge.

The United States Attorney has confessed error in this § 22551 proceeding by reason of the district court's denial of petitioner's request for appointment of counsel. We reverse the judgment denying relief and remand for further proceedings.

353 F.2d 11

On April 18, 1963, upon advice of court-appointed counsel, petitioner, a first offender, pleaded guilty to, and waived indictment for, a violation of the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2312. The district court imposed the maximum sentence of five years but suspended the sentence and placed petitioner upon probation for five years. On October 16, 1963, he was arrested in his home city of Worcester, Massachusetts, for violation of probation. Again, on advice of court-appointed counsel, he pleaded guilty on November 20, 1963, to the violation. Probation was revoked and since November, 1963, he has been serving the five year sentence for violation of the Dyer Act.

Petitioner filed this § 2255 proceeding pro se on May 22, 1964, alleging that a psychiatric examination should have been conducted before his trial for the Dyer Act violation in 1963, which would have disclosed that he was not criminally responsible at the time of the offense and not mentally competent to assist in his defense against the charge. The district court held a hearing on the pro se petition, denied request of petitioner and rejected the government attorney's suggestion for appointment of counsel. Denial of this request is the basis of the confession of error on authority of this court's decisions in Milani v. United States, 319 F.2d 441 (7th Cir. 1963), and Campbell v. United States, 318 F.2d 874 (7th Cir. 1963).

We decline to lay down the broad rule, urged upon us by the American Civil Liberties Union, amicus curiae, requiring appointment of counsel for indigent petitioners in aid of preparation and presentation of petitions in all § 2255 proceedings. We limit this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 practice notes
  • U.S. v. Consuelo-Gonzalez, CONSUELO-GONZALE
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 15 Abril 1975
    ...(1970), standard 3.2; American Law Institute, Model Penal Code (1962) §§ 301.1, 305.13; Cf. Sweeney v. United States (7th Cir. 1965) 353 F.2d 10, 11; Springer v. United States (9th Cir. 1945) 148 F.2d 411, 416; In re Bushman (1970) 1 Cal.3d 767, 776-77, 83 Cal.Rptr. 375, 380-81, 463 P.2d 1 ......
  • Gorham v. United States, No. 5992.
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • 7 Mayo 1975
    ...United States, 365 F.2d 404, 407-08 (6th Cir. 1966); Lewis v. Celebrezze, 359 F.2d 398, 399-400 (4th Cir. 1966); Sweeney v. United States, 353 F.2d 10, 11 (7th Cir. 1965); Weaver v. Finch, 306 F.Supp. 1185, 1194 (W.D.Mo.1969); State v. Fearon, 283 Minn. 90, 166 N.W.2d 720 The leading case o......
  • Murphy v. Raoul, No. 16 C 11471
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • 31 Marzo 2019
    ...applied the status doctrine outside the normal context of criminal prosecution: in that case, probation. See Sweeney v. United States , 353 F.2d 10, 11 (7th Cir. 1965) (ruling that a probation condition is unreasonable if it is impossible to obey because the probationer has no power of voli......
  • Murhy v. Raoul, No. 16 C 11471
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • 31 Marzo 2019
    ...applied the status doctrine outside the normal context of criminal prosecution: in that case, probation. See Sweeney v. United States, 353 F.2d 10, 11 (7th Cir. 1965) (ruling that a probation condition is unreasonable if it is impossible to obey because the probationer has no power of volit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
29 cases
  • U.S. v. Consuelo-Gonzalez, CONSUELO-GONZALE
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 15 Abril 1975
    ...(1970), standard 3.2; American Law Institute, Model Penal Code (1962) §§ 301.1, 305.13; Cf. Sweeney v. United States (7th Cir. 1965) 353 F.2d 10, 11; Springer v. United States (9th Cir. 1945) 148 F.2d 411, 416; In re Bushman (1970) 1 Cal.3d 767, 776-77, 83 Cal.Rptr. 375, 380-81, 463 P.2d 1 ......
  • Gorham v. United States, No. 5992.
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • 7 Mayo 1975
    ...United States, 365 F.2d 404, 407-08 (6th Cir. 1966); Lewis v. Celebrezze, 359 F.2d 398, 399-400 (4th Cir. 1966); Sweeney v. United States, 353 F.2d 10, 11 (7th Cir. 1965); Weaver v. Finch, 306 F.Supp. 1185, 1194 (W.D.Mo.1969); State v. Fearon, 283 Minn. 90, 166 N.W.2d 720 The leading case o......
  • Murphy v. Raoul, No. 16 C 11471
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • 31 Marzo 2019
    ...applied the status doctrine outside the normal context of criminal prosecution: in that case, probation. See Sweeney v. United States , 353 F.2d 10, 11 (7th Cir. 1965) (ruling that a probation condition is unreasonable if it is impossible to obey because the probationer has no power of voli......
  • Murhy v. Raoul, No. 16 C 11471
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • 31 Marzo 2019
    ...applied the status doctrine outside the normal context of criminal prosecution: in that case, probation. See Sweeney v. United States, 353 F.2d 10, 11 (7th Cir. 1965) (ruling that a probation condition is unreasonable if it is impossible to obey because the probationer has no power of volit......
  • 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