Taylor v. United States

Decision Date18 October 1962
Docket NumberNo. 17188.,17188.
Citation308 F.2d 776
PartiesJames Peter TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

George G. McPartlin, St. Paul, Minn., for petitioner.

Miles W. Lord, U. S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., and John J. Connelly, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Paul, Minn., in opposition.

Before SANBORN and BLACKMUN, Circuit Judges, and REGISTER, District Judge.

SANBORN, Circuit Judge.

James Peter Taylor, a prisoner under sentence of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, has petitioned this Court for leave to prosecute in forma pauperis his appeal from an order of November 1, 1961, denying a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for the vacation of his sentence, notwithstanding the certificate, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a), of Chief Judge Devitt, who heard and decided the motion, that the appeal is not taken in good faith.

This Court, in Taylor v. United States, 8 Cir., 282 F.2d 16, an appeal from a previous denial of Taylor's motion under § 2255, on July 29, 1960 decided that the only issue raised by Taylor in his motion that required a hearing was his claim that he was mentally incompetent during the proceedings conducted before Judge Nordbye which led to Taylor's conviction upon his plea of guilty to a charge of having killed a bank cashier in attempting to avoid apprehension for bank robbery and to charges of the interstate transportation of counterfeited and stolen travelers checks. This Court remanded the case for a hearing on that one issue.

The District Court, in compliance with the direction of this Court, on October 27, 1960 ordered that Taylor be accorded a hearing before Judge Devitt on the issue of alleged mental incompetency of Taylor during the proceedings which led to his conviction. A hearing was held on July 10, 11 and 12, 1961, with Taylor present and represented by thoroughly competent counsel appointed by Judge Devitt. As a prelude to his findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order, reported in D.C., 199 F.Supp. 734, Judge Devitt recited the lengths to which the court went in according Taylor a comprehensive hearing on his claim of mental incompetency during the criminal proceedings against him. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of Judge Devitt state fully and in great detail the evidentiary basis for his determination that Taylor was mentally competent at all times during all proceedings leading to the sentence which he seeks to have vacated. Taylor's motion was therefore again denied.

On November 17, 1961, Taylor lodged with the Clerk of the District Court a notice of appeal from the denial of his motion, and moved for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. By order of the same date he was permitted to file his notice of appeal without prepayment of Clerk's fees, but his motion was otherwise denied, Judge Devitt certifying that the appeal was not taken in good faith. On December 8, 1961, an additional order was entered, denying a supplemental application filed by Taylor for leave to proceed on appeal as a poor person.

On December 18, 1961, Taylor filed with the Clerk of this Court what he entitled, "Motion to Review the District Court's Certification that Proposed Appeal is Made in Bad Faith." This was, in effect, a petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal from the denial of his motion to vacate sentence, notwithstanding Judge Devitt's certificate.

This Court on February 6, 1962, declined to rule on Taylor's motion, and offered to appoint counsel to assist him in making a showing which might warrant granting him the right to prosecute his appeal as a pauper. Upon his acceptance of the offer, this Court on April 17, 1962, appointed Messrs. George G. McPartlin and John S. Connolly, of the St. Paul, Minnesota, bar, "to represent him Taylor in ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Butler v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • November 8, 1967
    ...of the trial court's resolution of such factual issues. Clayton v. United States, supra; Feguer v. United States, supra; Taylor v. United States, 8 Cir., 308 F.2d 776. We have carefully examined the entire record. The trial court's detailed findings, dictated into the record, adequately dem......
  • U.S. v. Wicker
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • November 29, 1993
    ... ... Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order ... UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, ... Tony Ray WICKER, Defendant-Appellant ... No. 91-2108 ... ...
  • Taylor v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • January 10, 1968
    ...has been before this court on three prior occasions on § 2255 motions. Taylor v. United States, 8 Cir., 282 F.2d 16; Taylor v. United States, 8 Cir., 308 F.2d 776; Taylor v. United States, 8 Cir., 330 F.2d 157. The factual background of this litigation is adequately set out in our prior opi......
  • U.S. v. Johnston
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • November 29, 1993
    ... ... Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order ... UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, ... Thomas Lane JOHNSTON Defendant-Appellant ... No ... ...
  • 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