Williams v. United States, Civ. No. 61-393.
| Decision Date | 31 August 1961 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 61-393. |
| Citation | 197 F. Supp. 198 |
| Parties | Willard WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
H. Jackson Daniel, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff.
Sidney I. Lezak, Acting U. S. Atty., Portland, Or., for defendant.
Proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate judgment and sentence imposed on petitioner in the above court on the 7th day of June, 1946.
Petitioner charges, (a) that he was coerced into making a false confession, (b) that he was insane at the time of his trial, and (c) that he was deprived of his right to competent counsel.
The Court has examined the complete record in the criminal proceeding in which petitioner was convicted and sentenced and the record created under petitioner's previous motion for relief under Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and the appeal therefrom to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and has arrived at the following conclusions:
1. Petitioner's affidavit with reference to the use of an alleged confession during the course of the trial is extremely indefinite. The list of exhibits contains no reference to any such confession. Aside from that, petitioner's remedy on this point would be by way of appeal. A motion under § 2255 cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal. Bishop v. United States, 1955, 96 U.S. App.D.C. 117, 223 F.2d 582, 584. Even if evidence of the confession was admitted, this was a subject which could have been corrected on appeal and cannot be presented in this proceeding. Black v. United States, 9 Cir., 1959, 269 F.2d 38; Malone v. United States, 6 Cir., 1958, 257 F.2d 177.
2. In the motion for relief, signed by petitioner's attorney only, it is claimed that petitioner was insane at the time of the trial. However, there is absolutely nothing in the petitioner's affidavit which would support this statement, and, for that reason alone, the claim should be rejected. Mere conclusionary allegations in a petition to set aside a judgment of conviction and sentence under this section raise no substantial issues of fact. United States v. Angelet, 2 Cir., 1958, 255 F.2d 383; United States v. Bradford, 2 Cir., 1956, 238 F.2d 395, certiorari denied 352 U.S. 1002, 77 S.Ct. 558, 1 L.Ed.2d 546; Williams v. United States, 9 Cir., 1956, 236 F.2d 894, certiorari denied 352 U. S. 982, 77 S.Ct. 384, 1 L.Ed.2d 365; 356 U.S. 941, 78 S.Ct. 784, 2 L.Ed.2d 815; United States v. Campbell, 7 Cir., 1960, 278 F.2d 916. In addition, there is no showing that petitioner has requested an examination by a Board of Examiners pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241, 4245. Under the factual background of this case the petitioner should proceed under those sections before attempting to proceed under § 2255. Gordon v. United States, 10 Cir., 1957, 250 F.2d 676. If, on such an examination, it is found that there is probable cause to believe that petitioner was mentally incompetent at the time of the trial, then the Court could proceed to hold a hearing pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4244.
3. The claim that petitioner was inadequately represented by counsel is completely without merit. Petitioner's attorney is recognized as a trial lawyer with considerable experience in the field of criminal law. He moved for a directed verdict of acquittal in favor of petitioner. Later, he moved to set aside the verdict and made a very convincing argument in support of such motion. Incompetency of counsel is not a ground for vacating, setting aside or correcting a sentence unless the attorney's conduct is such that it made the trial a farce. Black v. United States, 9 Cir., 1959, 269 F.2d 38.
Where there has been a previous § 2255 motion, the District Judge has discretion to deny relief as to those allegations which could have been, but were not, raised in the earlier proceeding, unless the petitioner shows some justifiable reason why he was previously unable to assert his rights, or unless he was unaware of the significance of the relevant facts. Turner v. United States, 1958, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 313, 258...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Byers
...281 F.2d 497, 498 (6th Cir.1960), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 993, 82 S.Ct. 612, 71 L.Ed.2d 530 (1962) (same). But see Williams v. United States, 197 F.Supp. 198, 199 (D.C.Ore.1961) (improper use of allegedly coerced confession is to be considered on appeal, and cannot be addressed in a Sec. 225......
-
LaClair v. United States
...were not, raised in the earlier proceeding, unless petitioner was unaware of the significance of the relevant facts. Williams v. United States, 197 F.Supp. 198 (D.Ore. 1961); Turner v. United States, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 313, 258 F.2d 165 (1958); Moore v. United States, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 14, 278......
-
Alaway v. United States, 70-1167.
...offers no explanation or justification for not raising these points in his prior application for § 2255 relief. Williams v. United States, 197 F.Supp. 198 (D.C.Or.1961). Finally, the Traverse claims that since Respondent failed to reply specifically to the allegations of the Supplemental Mo......