Wheeler v. United States

• Decision Date: 12 January 1965
• Docket Number: No. 17723.,17723.
• Parties: Glendel D. WHEELER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

340 F.2d 119 (1965)

Glendel D. WHEELER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 17723.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

January 12, 1965.

Glendel D. Wheeler, pro se.

Richard D. FitzGibbon, Jr., U. S. Atty., and John A. Newton, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.

Before JOHNSEN, Chief Judge, and VAN OOSTERHOUT and MEHAFFY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Glendel D. Wheeler, hereinafter called defendant, was indicted, convicted by a jury, and sentenced on June 29, 1962, to eighteen years imprisonment on a bank robbery charge in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a) and (d). His conviction was affirmed upon appeal. Wheeler v. United States, 8 Cir., 317 F.2d 615.

Defendant's present appeal is from an order of the District Court filed May 18, 1964, denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion to vacate judgment and sentence. Defendant appears pro se and was permitted to take this appeal in forma pauperis by the trial court.

The trial court accurately summarizes the scope of defendant's motion as follows:

"The grounds for petitioner\'s motion is that he was mentally incompetent before, during and after his conviction and sentence. He apparently encompasses in his motion a claim of insanity at the time of the offense, a claim of incompetency to aid in his defense or to stand trial, and incompetency at the time of sentencing."

Defendant, at the time he filed his motion, was serving his sentence in the federal penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana. The pertinent allegations of his motion on the insanity issue are:

"In substance this action arises from and is based upon the facts that petitioner was mentally incompetent before, during and after his conviction and sentence was imposed upon him in this court on June 29, 1962, that he did not comprehend the nature and consequences of his acts.

"That he did not intelligently waive any of his constitutional rights; that his mental and moral faculties were and are so perverted and deranged and that he was and is incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong.

"That his will and the governing powers of his mind were so completely deranged that his actions were and are beyond his control.

"That his mind was and is so deranged that he could not adhere to right and refrain from doing wrong.

"Petitioners mental defects were and are so completely deranged that he was unable to have assisted in his defense of the alleged violation of section 2113(A) and (D) of title 18, United States Code.

"In any event he does not know nor remember wheather sic or not he violated any laws or perpetrated any crime against the sovereign United States."

The trial court denied the motion without granting a hearing, stating inter alia:

"The mere allegation of insanity or incompetency on a motion for vacation of sentence is insufficient to require a hearing. The record reflects a trial in which petitioner had adequate counsel, a fair and complete hearing in which defendant chose to defend upon the basis of denial of the commission of the crime and to rely upon an alibi that he was at another and different place at the time of the commission of the crime. Petitioner now attempts to contradict the record with a bald assertion of continuous insanity without an iota of fact, either in the record or outside of the record, in support of his allegation."

The trial court committed no error in denying the motion. The issue of insanity at the time of commission of the offense cannot be raised or considered in a § 2255 motion. Burrow v. United States, 8 Cir., 301 F.2d 442, 443; Taylor v. United States, 8 Cir., 282 F.2d 16, 21.

The mental competency of a convicted defendant at the time of his trial can be raised by a § 2255 motion where the issue of sanity has not been raised and determined at the trial...