Young v. United States, 71-1617.
| Decision Date | 27 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1617.,71-1617. |
| Citation | 457 F.2d 800 |
| Parties | Thomas E. YOUNG, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
William D. Yuill, Fargo, N. D., on brief for appellant.
Harold O. Bullis, U. S. Atty., and Lynn E. Crooks, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fargo, N. D., on brief for appellee.
Before GIBSON, HEANEY and ROSS, Circuit Judges.
This case was brought by petitioner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to set aside the sentence imposed upon him in 1952 following a plea of guilty to charges alleging interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle. Young's attack on his conviction and sentence is one of many 2255 motions we have considered.1
The trial court in this case determined that petitioner's claims were based essentially on the same grounds previously raised and denied by this Court. His claim that the convicting court did not comply with Rule 11 in accepting his guilty plea was refuted by this Court in Young v. United States, 423 F.2d 677 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 915, 90 S.Ct. 2221, 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 part of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 which provides: "The sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner."
We have carefully considered the allegations of the petitioner in light of the earlier cases and agree with Judge Davies that the points raised in this case are essentially the same as those raised and decided by us on earlier motions. The judgment is affirmed.
1 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); 246 F.2d 901 (8th Cir. 1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 917, 78 S.Ct. 348, 2 L.Ed.2d 277 (1958); 259 F.2d 641 (8th Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 917, 79 S.Ct. 595, 3 L.Ed.2d 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 (1970).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitney v. U.S., 74-1239
...1971). No relitigation of these issues is permitted. Vincent v. United States, 488 F.2d 1109, 1110 (8th Cir. 1973); Young v. United States, 457 F.2d 800 (8th Cir. 1972). Similarly, in view of their nature and the non-specific factual manner in which they have been presented, the court may n......
-
Vincent v. United States
...application for similar relief was properly dismissed. See Patrick v. United States, 466 F.2d 502 (8th Cir. 1972); Young v. United States, 457 F.2d 800 (8th Cir. 1972). For the reasons hereinbefore set forth, the judgment of the district court is * The Honorable Talbot Smith, Senior Distric......
-
Patrick v. United States, 72-1295.
...The district court is not required to entertain successive motions for similar relief on behalf of the same person. Young v. United States, 457 F. 2d 800 (C.A.8 1972). See Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963). A review of the record convinces us that Pa......