Williams v. United States, No. 6471.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 283 F.2d 59 |
| Docket Number | No. 6471. |
| Decision Date | 09 November 1960 |
| Parties | Cleveland Roy WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
283 F.2d 59 (1960)
Cleveland Roy WILLIAMS, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 6471.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
October 5, 1960.
Rehearing Denied November 9, 1960.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Redfield v. United States, No. 18167
...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 entertain the application for......
-
Lewis v. United States, No. 6867.
...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 the sentencin......
-
Williams v. United States, No. 7387
...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 323 F.2d 673 that the same contentions have been twice unsuccessfully presented to the Idaho court in motions under § 2255. See:......
-
Roche v. Breckon, Civil Action No. 7:18-cv-00325
...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......
-
Redfield v. United States, No. 18167
...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 entertain the application for......
-
Lewis v. United States, No. 6867.
...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 the sentencin......
-
Williams v. United States, No. 7387
...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 323 F.2d 673 that the same contentions have been twice unsuccessfully presented to the Idaho court in motions under § 2255. See:......
-
Roche v. Breckon, Civil Action No. 7:18-cv-00325
...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......