Archie Raymond Streator v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Archie Raymond Streator v. United States

367 F.2d 384, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4604

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 25, 1966

Docket23664

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 367 F.2d 384 (Archie Raymond Streator v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Archie Raymond Streator v. United States, 367 F.2d 384, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4604 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 involves an appeal from a denial of a motion to vacate the sentence on the ground that appellant was mentally incompetent to stand trial and, because of this incompetency, his waiver of counsel and subsequent plea of guilty were not intelligently or voluntarily made. The motion was denied without a hearing, and the failure to hold a hearing is the principal issue involved. The requirement of a hearing on such a petition depends on whether or not the allegations are valid and substantial and cannot be resolved from the motion, the files and prior records. A hearing would be mandatory if sufficient facts were alleged to support a claim for relief unless the motion, files and records conclusively show that the claim is without merit. See Nelms v. United States, 4 Cir. 1963, 318 F.2d 150, and Floyd v. United States, 5 Cir. 1966, 365 F.2d 368 (decided September 2, 1966).

Appellant’s motion fails to allege any facts sufficient to indicate mental incompetence at the time of arraignment and sentencing. The trial judge who imposed the sentence was fully aware of the personal and criminal history of appellant and rendered his decision after carefully studying the transcripts of proceedings at arraignment and sentencing as well as the presentence report and file of the probation officer. The trial judge said:

“Petitioner was extensively questioned about whether he desired counsel, about the facts of the crimes, and about the voluntariness and his understanding of the guilty pleas. Unlike the case of Johnson v. United States, 5 Cir. 1965, 344 F.2d 401, nothing appears in the record that would raise the slightest doubt of petitioner’s mental competency.”

There is nothing in the record before us, or that was before the district judge, that would indicate any doubt about appellant’s mental competency. We believe the district judge carefully considered the matter, and that the petition is devoid of merit.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 involves an appeal from a denial of a motion to vacate the sentence on the ground that appellant was mentally incompetent to stand trial and, because of this incompetency, his waiver of counsel and subsequent plea of guilty were not intelligently or voluntarily made. The motion was denied without a hearing, and the failure to hold a hearing is the principal issue involved. The requirement of a hearing on such a petition depends on whether or not the allegations are valid and substantial and cannot be resolved from the motion, the files and prior records. A hearing would be mandatory if sufficient facts were alleged to support a claim for relief unless the motion, files and records conclusively show that the claim is without merit. See Nelms v. United States, 4 Cir. 1963, 318 F.2d 150, and Floyd v. United States, 5 Cir. 1966, 365 F.2d 368 (decided September 2, 1966).

Appellant’s motion fails to allege any facts sufficient to indicate mental incompetence at the time of arraignment and sentencing. The trial judge who imposed the sentence was fully aware of the personal and criminal history of appellant and rendered his decision after carefully studying the transcripts of proceedings at arraignment and sentencing as well as the presentence report and file of the probation officer. The trial judge said:

“Petitioner was extensively questioned about whether he desired counsel, about the facts of the crimes, and about the voluntariness and his understanding of the guilty pleas. Unlike the case of Johnson v. United States, 5 Cir. 1965, 344 F.2d 401, nothing appears in the record that would raise the slightest doubt of petitioner’s mental competency.”

There is nothing in the record before us, or that was before the district judge, that would indicate any doubt about appellant’s mental competency. We believe the district judge carefully considered the matter, and that the petition is devoid of merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

367 F.2d 384, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/archie-raymond-streator-v-united-states-ca5-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack