U.S. v. Prichard
| Citation | 875 F.2d 789 |
| Decision Date | 22 May 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-2867,87-2867 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carl Emmitt PRICHARD, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
Carl Emmitt Prichard, pro se.
Michael J. Norton, Acting U.S. Atty., James K. Bredar, Asst. U.S. Atty., Denver, Colo., for defendant-appellee.
Before LOGAN, EBEL, Circuit Judges, and COOK, Chief Judge. *
Carl Emmitt Prichard was convicted following a bench trial of attempted bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113(a). The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. See United States v. Prichard, 781 F.2d 179 (10th Cir.1986). Prichard now appeals from an order of the district court denying his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 1. In the motion to vacate, which was filed with an accompanying memorandum brief, Prichard articulated his grounds for relief as follows:
(1) Rule 23(a), F.R.C.P. was violated to defendant's prejudice by the failure to comply therewith, thus, rendering defendant's waiver jury trial nonvoluntary, knowing and intelligent.
(2) Under the facts of this case, the application of the attempt statute to defendant's conduct was the constitutional violation, as "attempt" was unconstitutionally vague as applied.
(3) The district court misapplied the relevant legal standards in determining defendant's guilt.
On appeal Prichard has reasserted these grounds for relief and further asks for recusal of the district judge.
We have reviewed the record on appeal and the parties' appellate briefs, and we agree with the district court that Prichard has not demonstrated a basis for relief. The only issue justifying mention is the failure to reduce to writing Prichard's knowing acquiescence in waiver of his constitutional right to a jury trial as required under Fed.R.Crim.P. 23(a). Collateral relief is not available when all that is shown is a failure to comply with the formal requirements of a rule of criminal procedure in the absence of any indication that the defendant was prejudiced by the technical error. Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 346, 94 S.Ct. 2298, 2305, 41 L.Ed.2d 109 (1974). In this case there is no indication that the lack of a document memorializing Prichard's waiver of trial by jury resulted in anything less than a knowing, intelligent waiver.
We believe the other two issues raised in the motion to vacate were fairly encompassed in Prichard's direct appeal. See Prichard, 781 F.2d at 181-82. Absent an intervening change in the law of a circuit, issues disposed of on direct appeal generally will not be considered on a collateral attack by a motion pursuant to Sec. 2255. United States v. Nolan, 571 F.2d 528, 530 (10th Cir.1978). There is no new law applicable to Prichard's criminal conduct that would inure to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cleveland By and Through Cleveland v. Piper Aircraft Corp.
...... 17 . The United States, which has filed an amicus brief urging preemption, points us to 49 U.S.C.App. § 1508(a), which it suggests evinces Congress's intent to occupy the field of air safety. That section of the original Act, see ......
-
U.S. v. Robertson
...for finding a waiver invalid simply because Rule 23(a)'s writing requirement has not been met. Cf. United States v. Prichard, 875 F.2d 789, 790 (10th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (holding that collateral review of the validity of a jury waiver in the absence of a Rule 23(a) writing is not availab......
-
Moore v. Brunswick Bowling & Billiards Corp.
...... that the precepts that preemption clauses must be narrowly construed and that Congress' intent to preempt must be "clear and manifest" counsel us to decline to read "law or regulation" so broadly as to include state common-law claims. See English, 496 U.S. at 79, 110 S.Ct. at 2275; see also ......
-
Foster v. Chatman
...v. United States, 371 F.3d 900, 902 (C.A.7 2004) ; United States v. Jones, 918 F.2d 9, 10–11 (C.A.2 1990) ; United States v. Prichard, 875 F.2d 789, 790–791 (C.A.10 1989). Cf. Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 342, 94 S.Ct. 2298, 41 L.Ed.2d 109 (1974). As we have said, "[i]t has, of cou......