James Allen McCreary v. United States

Fifth Circuit

James Allen McCreary v. United States

249 F.2d 433, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4006

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 29, 1957

Docket16546

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 249 F.2d 433 (James Allen McCreary 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

James Allen McCreary v. United States, 249 F.2d 433, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4006 (5th Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion, filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, to set aside a judgment and sentence upon a verdict of a jury finding the appellant guilty of transporting in interstate commerce a stolen motor vehicle.

The only claim made below and here is: that the facts proven in the criminal action did not, under Hite v. United States, 10 Cir, 168 F.2d 973, establish that the automobile was stolen; and that, upon the record, he was entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal and the case should not have been submitted to the jury.

We put to one side the fact that the decision in the Hite case was expressly disapproved by the Supreme Court in United States v. Turley, 352 U.S. 407, 77 S.Ct. 397, 1 L.Ed.2d 430, to say: that it it established that a proceeding under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 constitutes a collateral attack upon the judgment and sentence of the court; and that matters which could and should have been raised upon direct appeal furnish no basis for the motion. Arthur v. United States, 5 Cir, 230 F.2d 666; Tussy v. United States, 5 Cir, 239. F.2d 172.

On the trial of the criminal case, in which appellant was represented by counsel, there were no exceptions to the charge, no attack upon the information. In effect what appellant sought to do below and seeks to do here is, by means of a Section 2255 motion, to retry the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction, and this he cannot do.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion, filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, to set aside a judgment and sentence upon a verdict of a jury finding the appellant guilty of transporting in interstate commerce a stolen motor vehicle.

The only claim made below and here is: that the facts proven in the criminal action did not, under Hite v. United States, 10 Cir, 168 F.2d 973, establish that the automobile was stolen; and that, upon the record, he was entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal and the case should not have been submitted to the jury.

We put to one side the fact that the decision in the Hite case was expressly disapproved by the Supreme Court in United States v. Turley, 352 U.S. 407, 77 S.Ct. 397, 1 L.Ed.2d 430, to say: that it it established that a proceeding under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 constitutes a collateral attack upon the judgment and sentence of the court; and that matters which could and should have been raised upon direct appeal furnish no basis for the motion. Arthur v. United States, 5 Cir, 230 F.2d 666; Tussy v. United States, 5 Cir, 239. F.2d 172.

On the trial of the criminal case, in which appellant was represented by counsel, there were no exceptions to the charge, no attack upon the information. In effect what appellant sought to do below and seeks to do here is, by means of a Section 2255 motion, to retry the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction, and this he cannot do.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 F.2d 433, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-allen-mccreary-v-united-states-ca5-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack