Thomas v. United States, CIV-2-75-147.
Citation | 426 F. Supp. 621 |
Decision Date | 19 November 1975 |
Docket Number | No. CIV-2-75-147.,CIV-2-75-147. |
Parties | Lonnie THOMAS, Movant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
Lonnie Thomas, pro se.
John L. Bowers, Jr., U. S. Atty., Knoxville, Tenn., for respondent.
The movant Mr. Lonnie Thomas, a prisoner in the custody of an agent of the respondent under sentences of February 25, 1971 of this Court in United States of America, plaintiff, v. Lonnie Thomas, defendant, criminal action no. 7183, this district and division, and in United States of America, plaintiff, v. Frank Stewart, Jr., et al., defendants, criminal action no. 7182, this district and division, claims the right to be released upon the ground that such sentences were imposed in violation of the Constitution, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion and files and records of the aforenumbered criminal actions show conclusively that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, so that no notice, hearing, determination of the issues, findings of fact or conclusions of law with respect thereto are required. Idem.
In criminal action no. 7183, supra, after counsel was appointed for him, Mr. Thomas was arraigned on October 26, 1970 under the indictment therein. Upon his plea of not guilty to both counts thereof, trial was assigned for Wednesday, November 18, 1970. On the day preceding the commencement of such trial, Mr. Thomas appeared in open court with his counsel, who announced that Mr. Thomas wished to plead guilty to both counts of the indictment therein and had signed a petition for such purpose. It was stated in such petition, inter alia:
Although the Court did not advise the movant specifically that, in changing his pleas from not guilty to guilty therein, he would be waiving his rights to the presumption of innocence or against self-incrimination, the movant did waive his right to the presumption of innocence by making no claim of innocence. His offer of his pleas of guilty were, themselves, * * *"Kercheval v. United States (1927), 274 U.S. 220, 221, 223, 47 S.Ct. 582, 583, 71 L.Ed. 1009, 1012. There was no role for the presumption of innocence after his plea; the benefit of such presumption was simultaneously waived with his plea. Likewise, a defendant who pleads guilty to an indictment "* * * simultaneously waives * * * his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination * * *". McCarthy v. United States (1969), 394 U.S. 459, 466, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 1171, 22 L.Ed.2d 418, 4257.
The movant claims also that the Court failed to observe the requirements of Rule 11, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. On November 17, 1970 that rule provided in pertinent parts: "* * * The court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty, and shall not accept such plea * * * without first addressing the defendant personally and determining that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea. * * *" Following is the relevant address of the movant on that occasion.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Frank v. United States, Crim. No. 79-57. Civ. A. No. 81-193
...Masciola v. United States, 469 F.2d 1057 (3d Cir. 1972); Gaugler v. United States, 312 F.2d 681 (2nd Cir. 1963); Thomas v. United States, 426 F.Supp. 621 (E.D. Tenn.1975), aff'd 546 F.2d 425 (6th Cir. 1976); Lambert v. United States, 392 F.Supp. 113 (N.D.Ga.1975), (Erroneous expectation of ......
-
Esquivel v. Estelle
... ... No. SA-76-CA-32 ... United States District Court, W. D. Texas, San Antonio Division ... May 14, ... ...