Young v. United States, 15385.
| Decision Date | 30 January 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 15385.,15385. |
| Citation | 228 F.2d 693 |
| Parties | Thomas E. YOUNG and Margaret Rita Young, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Appellants pro se.
Robert Vogel, U. S. Atty., Fargo, N. D., for appellee.
Before SANBORN, JOHNSEN and VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal in forma pauperis from an order denying a motion of the appellants for the vacation of sentences which they are presently serving and which were imposed by the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota on October 31, 1952. One of the contentions of the appellants is that they did not competently waive, and were not properly informed of, their right to be represented by counsel when they entered pleas of guilty, exactly one year before they were sentenced, although at the time sentences were pronounced they were represented by counsel of their own choosing and made no motion for leave to withdraw their pleas. The other contention is that they were induced by Government counsel to enter pleas of guilty by a promise that they would receive lesser sentences than were imposed upon them.
The Judge who sentenced the appellants and who considered their motion to vacate their sentences has set forth in detail in his memorandum opinion the record of the proceedings which, in his judgment, conclusively showed that they were not entitled to have their sentences vacated or to be present at a hearing on their motion. There is no need to state again in detail what is shown by the files and records of the District Court.
The first contention of the appellants is utterly without merit. At the time they entered their pleas of guilty — a year before they were sentenced — they waived indictment and rejected the offer of the Court to appoint counsel for them. Their contention that they intended to waive representation by counsel with respect to waiving indictment only, and not with respect to entering pleas of guilty, is absurd. Moreover, as already stated, they were represented by counsel, employed by them, when they were sentenced, and no request was made for permission to withdraw the pleas which they now say were improvidently entered by them without having waived their right to counsel or being properly informed of that right. Under the ruling in the case of Canizio v. New York, 327 U.S. 82, 85-86, 66 S.Ct. 452, 90 L.Ed. 545, a failure of a trial court to inform...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Hamilton
...without regard to what previously transpired. Council v. Clemmer, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 74, 177 F.2d 22, and cases cited; Young v. United States, 8 Cir., 228 F.2d 693. The same rule seems to apply to those states where provision is made for appointment of counsel to represent defendants charged w......
-
United States v. Smith, 382
...certiorari denied 345 U.S. 1001, 73 S.Ct. 1148, 97 L. Ed. 1407; Gordon v. United States, 5 Cir., 216 F.2d 495, 498; Young v. United States, 8 Cir., 228 F.2d 693, 694; Diggs v. Welch, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 5, 148 F.2d 667, 670, certiorari denied 325 U.S. 889, 65 S.Ct. 1576, 89 L.Ed. 2002. Cf. Unit......
-
Young v. United States, 71-1617.
...26 L.Ed.2d 574 (1970); and his claim that he was not properly advised of his right to counsel was fully answered in Young v. United States, 228 F.2d 693 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U. S. 913, 76 S.Ct. 704, 100 L.Ed. 1447 (1956). The trial court then denied the motion on the basis of that ......
-
Young v. United States
...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......