Williams v. United States, 6471.

Decision Date09 November 1960
Docket NumberNo. 6471.,6471.
Citation283 F.2d 59
PartiesCleveland Roy WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Roy N. McCue, Topeka, for appellant.

Wilbur G. Leonard, U. S. Atty., State of Kansas, Topeka, Kan., for appellee.

Before PHILLIPS, LEWIS and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is a habeas corpus proceeding in which petitioner, Williams, seeks release from Leavenworth penitentiary where he is serving a 14-year sentence imposed on December 20, 1957, by the United States District Court for the District of Idaho upon his plea of guilty to each of seven counts of an indictment charging the interstate transportation of forged and falsely made securities in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314.

Previously the petitioner has applied to the sentencing court for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The judgment denying such relief was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and was affirmed in an unreported decision. Certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court. 361 U.S. 842, 80 S.Ct. 91, 4 L.Ed.2d 80.

Section 2255 provides that an application for habeas corpus on behalf of a prisoner authorized to pursue the remedy afforded under that section shall not be entertained if he has failed to ask relief by motion in the sentencing court or that such court has denied him such relief "unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." As Williams is in federal custody serving a federal sentence, the § 2255 remedy is exclusive in the absence of a showing that such remedy is inadequate or ineffective.1

The petition for habeas corpus alleges no facts showing that the § 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective. This alone justifies the denial of the writ.2 In the brief of court-appointed counsel it is asserted that the sentencing court was without jurisdiction because the securities transported were not forged within the meaning of § 2314. Lack of jurisdiction is a specific ground for relief under § 2255 and may be adequately and effectively tested by that procedure.3

Counsel for Williams urges that the sentencing court erred in not permitting the withdrawal of the guilty plea because of the incompetency of the defendant. The record shows that the question of incompetency was raised in advance of plea and sentence and was resolved against the defendant after consideration of a report of a court-appointed psychiatrist. Admittedly, this question was presented to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and resolved against Williams. The fact that the issue was determined contrary to the contentions of Williams does not establish any ground for questioning the adequacy or effectiveness of the remedy provided for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Redfield v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • March 6, 1963
    ...or ineffective, unless such denial was on the ground, affirmed on appeal, that section 2255 is not an available remedy. Williams v. United States, 10 Cir., 283 F.2d 59. Here, no such showing was or could be It follows that the District Court in California did not have jurisdiction to entert......
  • Lewis v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • March 20, 1962
    ...that unlawful function was a matter of proof. But, appellant's plea of guilty admitted all facts well pleaded. See Williams v. United States (10 C.A.), 283 F.2d 59; Adam v. United States (10 C.A.), 274 F.2d 880. And ordinarily, when there is an offense defined by a federal statute, of which......
  • Williams v. United States, 7387
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • November 11, 1963
    ...on the ground that the issues raised were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Idaho sentencing court. See: Williams v. United States, 10 Cir., 283 F.2d 59. It also appears that the same contentions have been twice unsuccessfully presented to the Idaho court in motions under § 2255. See......
  • Roche v. Breckon
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • March 5, 2020
    ...to the court's jurisdiction should be raised pursuant to § 2255 in the sentencing court. See id.; see also Williams v. United States, 283 F.2d 59, 60 (10th Cir. 1960) ("Lack of jurisdiction is a specific ground for relief under § 2255 and may be adequately and effectively tested by that pro......
  • 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