Armour Bailey v. United States

324 F.2d 632
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit·Decided November 19, 1963·No. 7466_1·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

For the second time appellant is here seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 from a sentence imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 2113. The trial court, without a hearing, denied relief. On his prior application appellant contended that his guilty plea was not made voluntarily and understanding^. The trial court held to the contrary and we affirmed. Bailey v. United States, 10 Cir., 312 F.2d 679.

Appellant now contends that the sentence should be vacated because the prosecution followed an illegal arrest and search. We have held to the contrary in a case brought by a codefendant. See Sullivan v. United States, 10 Cir., 315 F.2d 304.

Appellant says that the present application should not have been denied without a hearing. The contention is without merit. As we pointed out in Sullivan, if the guilty plea was voluntary, the allegedly illegal conduct is no ground for relief under § 2255. In the prior § 2255 application we held that the guilty plea was made knowingly and voluntarily.

Affirmed.

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

Armour Bailey v. United States, 324 F.2d 632 (10th Cir. 1963).

324 F.2d 632 (Armour Bailey v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Clark v. Western District of Oklahoma
399 F. Supp. 305 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1975)
United States v. Donald Edward Donohoe
458 F.2d 237 (Tenth Circuit, 1972)
United States v. Stephen L. Soltow
444 F.2d 59 (Tenth Circuit, 1971)
The PEOPLE v. Thomas
242 N.E.2d 177 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1968)
Von Pickrell v. People
431 P.2d 1003 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1967)
Melvin Leroy Mahler v. United States
333 F.2d 472 (Tenth Circuit, 1964)