Throgmartin v. United States

Decision Date06 April 1970
Docket NumberNo. 28199 Summary Calendar.,28199 Summary Calendar.
Citation424 F.2d 630
PartiesVern Mac THROGMARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Vern Mac Throgmartin, pro se.

Jesse L. Yancy, Jr. (court appointed), Bruce, Miss., for plaintiff-appellant.

H. M. Ray, U. S. Atty., J. Murray Akers, Asst. U. S. Atty., Oxford, Miss., for defendant-appellee.

Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Throgmartin, was indicted for the offenses of bank burglary in violation of Title 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2 and 2113(a), failing to appear before a court or judicial officer in violation of Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 3150 (2 counts) and escaping from custody in violation of Title 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2 and 751 (2 counts). He was represented by court appointed counsel, pled guilty and was sentenced for a term of nine years. In his § 2255 motion to vacate sentence Throgmartin claimed that the grand jury which indicted him was defectively constituted because of the systematic exclusion of Negroes. He also filed a Motion to Produce in order to obtain information necessary to support his motion to vacate sentence. The court below denied both motions without a hearing. We affirm.1

Objections to the composition of a grand jury are governed by Rule 12(b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Shotwell Manufacturing Company v. United States, 1963, 371 U.S. 341, 83 S.Ct. 448, 9 L.Ed. 357. Rule 12(b) (2) and 12(b) (3) F.R. Crim.P. provide that a defect in the indictment must be objected to by a motion before a guilty plea is entered and that a failure to object at that time waives such a defense. Since Throgmartin did not object to the composition of the grand jury that indicted him prior to his voluntary guilty plea, he is deemed to have waived that defense and may not now for the first time assert the objection. Scales v. United States, 1961, 367 U.S. 203, 81 S.Ct. 1469, 6 L.Ed. 782; Bustillo v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 421 F.2d 131; Jackson v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 394 F.2d 114.

Appellant has not alleged nor have we found any cause for exercising the extraordinary power provided in Rule 12(b) (2) to grant relief from the waiver provisions of that rule.

Since appellant's motion to produce was made for the sole purpose of obtaining information relating to his motion to vacate sentence which motion was denied, the motion to produce would have served no useful purpose and was properly denied. The decision of the District Court is affirmed.

1 Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • United States v. Northside Rlty. Assoc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • March 17, 1981
    ...is "an exercise of an extraordinary power" and must be regarded as an exception to the rule. Id. at 1218. See Throgmartin v. United States, 424 F.2d 630 (5 Cir. 1970.) If it were here necessary to articulate relief from a Rule 12(b) waiver based on cause, presumed, if not actual, prejudice ......
  • Winters v. Cook, 71-3323.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • January 2, 1973
    ...and petit juries. Colson v. Smith, 5 Cir. 1971, 438 F.2d 1075, 1078;1 Williams v. Smith, 5 Cir. 1970, 434 F.2d 592; Throgmartin v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 424 F.2d 630. Both the State courts and the district court in this case held that Winters' plea of guilty waived his right to compla......
  • Colson v. Smith, 28943.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • January 21, 1971
    ...the right to challenge the construction of the grand jury. Williams v. Smith, 5th Cir. 1970, 434 F.2d 592; Throgmartin v. United States, 5th Cir. 1970, 424 F.2d 630. Under this rule, were we to find that petitioner's guilty plea was voluntarily entered, we would be precluded from any consid......
  • State v. Valentine
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • November 8, 1971
    ...the indictment. Colson v. Smith, 438 F.2d 1075 (5th Cir., 1971); Williams v. Smith, 434 F.2d 592 (5th Cir., 1970); Throgmartin v. United States, 424 F.2d 630 (5th Cir., 1970); Maxie v. Cox, supra; Gillespie v. United States, supra; Parks v. Peyton, D.C., 303 F.Supp. 330, and the authorities......
  • 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