Young v. United States
Decision Date | 13 June 1969 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 4452. |
Citation | 300 F. Supp. 373 |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota |
Parties | Thomas Edward YOUNG, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent. |
Thomas E. Young, per se.
Harold O. Bullis, U. S. Atty., Fargo, N. D., for respondent.
This is the fourth attempt by petitioner, Thomas E. Young, to have vacated the convictions and sentences entered in Criminal Nos. 8048, 8052 and 8136. For the chronology and results of the prior attacks see Young v. United States, 228 F.2d 693 (8th Cir. 1956), cert. denied 351 U.S. 913, 76 S.Ct. 704, 100 L.Ed. 1447; 246 F.2d 901 (8th Cir. 1957), cert. denied 355 U.S. 917, 78 S.Ct. 348, 2 L.Ed. 2d 277; 259 F.2d 641 (8th Cir. 1958), cert. denied 359 U.S. 917, 79 S.Ct. 595, 3 L.Ed.2d 579; 274 F.2d 698 (8th Cir. 1960), aff. Payne v. Madigan, 366 U.S. 761, 81 S.Ct. 1670, 6 L.Ed.2d 853.
In his present motion, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, petitioner contends:
In support of petitioner's contention (a) he argues that, "If Petitioner had known, or had been advised, that Rule 20 proceedings were not still in effect, he most certainly would not have entered a guilty plea to Cr. 8136, and further, would have demanded of the court that he be allowed to withdraw his former pleas of guilty to all charges originating in this District, District of North Dakota."
This argument is essentially one of those presented and disposed of after a hearing held pursuant to his second attack of his convictions and sentences. After that hearing, held on April 4, 1957, the Court made and entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Judgment on May 13, 1957, which included the following:
The petitioner appealed from the order denying his motion for vacation of the convictions and sentences entered against him and the District Court's action was affirmed in Young v. United States, 259 F.2d 641 (8th Cir. 1958), cert. denied 359 U.S. 917, 79 S.Ct. 595, 3 L.Ed.2d 579.
Section 2255, Title 28 U.S.C.A., provides in part that, "The sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner." This has been construed to mean that successive motions under § 2255 are permissible only "if the motion is not frivolous, malicious or vexatious and presents a new or dissimilar ground for relief available under § 2255." Lipscomb v. United States, 298 F.2d 9 (8th Cir. 1962), cert. denied 369 U.S. 853, 82 S.Ct. 941, 8 L.Ed.2d 12; Richerson v. United States, 411 F.2d 656 (9th Cir. 1969).
In support of petitioner's contention (b) he argues that, "At time of pleas of guilty, October 31, 1951, Cr. 8048, and November 30, 1951, Cr. 8052, and October 31, 1952, Cr. 8136 in this District, Petitioner was not informed of any of his rights and safeguards with respect to Rule 11, fed.Rules of Crim. Proc. nor as to the state of the rule 20 proceedings, so that he would have a full and complete understanding of what was taking place and a positive understanding as to the length of sentence he was subject to receive," citing McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418. McCarthy, decided April 2, 1969, held that "a defendant is entitled to plead anew if a United States district court accepts his guilty plea without fully adhering to the procedure provided for in Rule 11."
Subsequent thereto on May 5, 1969, in Halliday v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Young v. United States, 71-1617.
...579 (1959); 274 F.2d 698 (8th Cir. 1960), aff'd sub nom. Payne v. Madigan, 366 U.S. 761, 81 S.Ct. 1670, 6 L.Ed.2d 853 (1961); 300 F.Supp. 373 (D.N.D.1969), aff'd 423 F.2d 677 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 915, 90 S.Ct. 2221, 26 L.Ed.2d 574 ...