Cleo Gregory v. United States

233 F.2d 907, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3222
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMay 25, 1956
Docket15232
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 233 F.2d 907 (Cleo Gregory 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
Cleo Gregory v. United States, 233 F.2d 907, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3222 (5th Cir. 1956).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from an order denying, without a hearing, petitioner’s motion *908 under Section 2255, Title 28 U.S.C. to vacate and set aside his conviction of murder in the second degree and his sentence to life imprisonment. Invoking the provision of the section:

“ * * * Unless the motion and files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon the United States attorney, grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto * *

and the decisions of this court, 2 appellant insists: that his motion contained categorical allegations which, if true, entitle him to the relief asked, and that he should have been given an opportunity to be heard upon, and to testify to, their truth.

The United States, in a thorough and workmanlike brief, citing many cases 3 and fully canvassing, in the light of the motion and files and records of the case and the opinion of the district judge denying the motion, petitioner’s claim that he should have been afforded a hearing, urges upon us that there is no basis for this claim and that the order appealed from should be affirmed.

We are greatly impressed with the consistency and logic of appellee’s presentation of the facts and law, and with the reasons given by the district judge for denying the motion without a hearing. Nevertheless, under the language of the statute and the authorities construing and applying it, and particularly because of the gravity of the offense charged and the punishment imposed, we are constrained to hold that he erred. This was not a case in which the district judge should proceed to a determination of the motion without granting a hearing at which applicant could testify and offer testimony and confront those who testified against him.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to grant petitioner a hearing and to proceed further and not inconsistently herewith.

2

. Kimbrough v. United States, 5 Cir., 226 F.2d 485; Ziebart v. United States, 5 Cir., 185 F.2d 124; Sanders v. United States, 5 Cir., 205 F.2d 399; and Smith v. United States, 5 Cir., 223 F.2d 750. Cf. United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 72 S.Ct. 263, 96 L.Ed. 232.

3

. Bowen v. United States, 5 Cir., 192 F.2d 515; Voltz v. United States, 5 Cir., 196 F.2d 298; United States v. Pisciotta, 2 Cir., 199 F.2d 603; Garcia v. United States, 9 Cir., 197 F.2d 687.

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

Related

United States v. Cleo Gregory
472 F.2d 484 (Fifth Circuit, 1973)
Ellis Raymond Williamson v. United States
265 F.2d 236 (Fifth Circuit, 1959)
Cleo Gregory v. United States
252 F.2d 395 (Fifth Circuit, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
233 F.2d 907, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cleo-gregory-v-united-states-ca5-1956.