Edwin B. Butler v. United States

Tenth Circuit

Edwin B. Butler v. United States

361 F.2d 869, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5900

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedJune 8, 1966

Docket8674

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 361 F.2d 869 (Edwin B. Butler v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edwin B. Butler v. United States, 361 F.2d 869, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5900 (10th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge.

Appellant was sentenced to three years imprisonment on his plea of guilty to a charge of violation of the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2312. The district court treated confused and irregular filings by appellant as a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and denied such relief without an evidentiary hearing. Appellant claims that the guilty plea was not entered voluntarily and that at the time of the plea he was mentally incompetent.

On the first appearance of appellant before the district court his appointed counsel told the court that appellant had a history of mental illness and requested a psychiatric examination. The court ordered appellant to be examined in the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri. Doctors of that institution, after examination of the appellant, made a written report to the district court in which they stated their diagnosis as “Schizophrenic Reaction, Paranoid Type, in partial remission” and that this condition “does not affect him to the extent that he is unable to assist in his defense and cooperate with counsel.” On the basis of this report, and without any hearing, the district court proceeded with the arraignment and imposed sentence.

We have held repeatedly that when one of the grounds asserted for relief is mental incompetence at the time of a guilty *870 plea, a § 2255 motion may not be disposed of without a hearing. See McDonald v. United States, 10 Cir., 341 F.2d 378; Nipp v. United States, 10 Cir., 324 F.2d 711; and Ellison v. United States, 10 Cir., 324 F.2d 710. The district court sought to avoid the effect of those decisions by holding that the files and records of the case show conclusively that the motion is without merit. This result places full reliance on the written report of the Springfield doctors. The appellant is entitled to an opportunity to cross-examine those doctors and to present evidence of his own as to his mental condition.

Reversed and remanded with directions to grant appellant a hearing.

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

BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge.

Appellant was sentenced to three years imprisonment on his plea of guilty to a charge of violation of the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2312. The district court treated confused and irregular filings by appellant as a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and denied such relief without an evidentiary hearing. Appellant claims that the guilty plea was not entered voluntarily and that at the time of the plea he was mentally incompetent.

On the first appearance of appellant before the district court his appointed counsel told the court that appellant had a history of mental illness and requested a psychiatric examination. The court ordered appellant to be examined in the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri. Doctors of that institution, after examination of the appellant, made a written report to the district court in which they stated their diagnosis as “Schizophrenic Reaction, Paranoid Type, in partial remission” and that this condition “does not affect him to the extent that he is unable to assist in his defense and cooperate with counsel.” On the basis of this report, and without any hearing, the district court proceeded with the arraignment and imposed sentence.

We have held repeatedly that when one of the grounds asserted for relief is mental incompetence at the time of a guilty *870 plea, a § 2255 motion may not be disposed of without a hearing. See McDonald v. United States, 10 Cir., 341 F.2d 378; Nipp v. United States, 10 Cir., 324 F.2d 711; and Ellison v. United States, 10 Cir., 324 F.2d 710. The district court sought to avoid the effect of those decisions by holding that the files and records of the case show conclusively that the motion is without merit. This result places full reliance on the written report of the Springfield doctors. The appellant is entitled to an opportunity to cross-examine those doctors and to present evidence of his own as to his mental condition.

Reversed and remanded with directions to grant appellant a hearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

361 F.2d 869, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwin-b-butler-v-united-states-ca10-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack