Taylor v. United States
| Citation | 215 F. Supp. 336 |
| Decision Date | 21 March 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 14275-1.,14275-1. |
| Parties | Ernest Eugene TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Ernest Eugene Taylor, petitioner pro se.
F. Russell Millin, U. S. Dist. Atty., Clifford M. Spottsville, Asst. U. S. Atty., for respondent.
On March 4, 1963, petitioner filed a motion pursuant to § 2255, Title 28 United States Code, to vacate and set aside his conviction on a plea of not guilty, after a trial before this Court sitting as a trier of the facts, of guilty as charged in each of four counts charging violations of the narcotics law, and his sentence of the minimum mandatory concurrent term of ten years.
By a letter to this Court, dated March 6, 1963, petitioner requested that a letter to him from his appointed counsel, Bryon N. Baker, Esq. of the Kansas City Bar, dated February 28, 1963, be attached as an exhibit to his motion. That request is granted and the letter will be considered as a part of petitioner's motion. Leave is also granted petitioner to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Government, within extended time, and on March 19, 1963, filed its suggestions in opposition to petitioner's motion. At least inferentially, it suggests that the motion should be overruled without a hearing. Had petitioner's motion been more definitive so far as factual allegations were concerned, we would have followed the Government's suggestion for much the same reasons stated by our colleague, Judge Becker, in United States v. Culbert, D.C.1963, 215 F.Supp. 333.
But our examination of petitioner's motion reveals that it is in an almost standard form not dissimilar to the many that are filed on behalf of particular inmates serving sentences in federal penal institutions. In fact, most of the Section 2255 motions that are presented, at least to the judges of this district court, follow an almost identical form and most cite and quote from the quite familiar cases.
Petitioner's motion in this case presents essentially the same procedural problem that we dealt with in Burleson v. United States, W.D.Mo.1962, 205 F. Supp. 331. In that case we followed in part, a procedural precedent established in connection with an earlier § 2255 motion filed by the very same movant involved in this case. In that case, Taylor v. United States, 8th Cir. 1956, 229 F.2d 826, the present petitioner unsuccessfully attempted to have set aside his first narcotics conviction. Following procedure followed by Judge Ridge in that case, we gave petitioner in Burleson fifteen (15) days in which to file an amendment to his motion in which he would set forth facts, as distinguished from legal conclusions. We felt then, and feel now, that it is eminently unfair to permit any inmate of a federal institution to unwittingly run afoul of the laws relating to perjury and subornation of perjury (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. United States
...of his court-appointed counsel. Because of that fact, Judge Oliver appointed other counsel for the defendant. See Taylor v. United States, D.C.W.D.Mo., 1963, 215 F.Supp. 336. A supplemental motion was filed by newly appointed counsel in which two issues were presented: First, it was charged......
-
Adamson v. Nash
...the fact that someone else is the actual author of his petition. See further in this connection our comment in Earnest Eugene Taylor v. United States, W.D.Mo.1963, 215 F.Supp. 336, where we stated that we feel that "it is eminently unfair to permit any inmate * * * to unwittingly run afoul ......
-
Lyles v. United States, 21782.
...378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977; United States ex rel. Durocher v. LaVallee, 2d Cir. 1964, 330 F.2d 303; Taylor v. United States, W.D.Mo. 1963, 215 F.Supp. 336; United States v. Cuthbert, W.D.Mo.1963, 215 F.Supp. 333, affirmed 8th Cir. 1964, 325 F.2d To the end that that issue, ......
-
Hamby v. United States
...(see also our discussion of that subject and the procedure we have adopted in connection with Section 2255 motions in Taylor v. United States, W.D.Mo.1963, 215 F.Supp. 336. See also our ultimate decision of Burleson reported in D.C., 209 F.Supp. What we there said, and the procedure we then......