James Allen Williams v. United States

Ninth Circuit

James Allen Williams v. United States

466 F.2d 672, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7780

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 24, 1972

Docket71-2920

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 466 F.2d 672 (James Allen Williams v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James Allen Williams v. United States, 466 F.2d 672, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7780 (9th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant sought post conviction relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He urged two grounds: (1) his mental incompetency at the time he pled guilty, and (2) the district court’s failure to comply with Rule 11, F.R.Crim.P., which prohibits acceptance of such a plea “without (the court’s) first addressing the defendant personally and determining that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea.”

The district court dismissed the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing.

(1) A sentencing court is generally not required to entertain a second motion for 2255 relief on a ground previously heard and determined. Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963). That rule applies here. Appellant, shortly after being sentenced, moved to withdraw his plea. The ground was mental incompetency. A hearing was held. His motion was denied. The transcript of that hearing reveals that the issue was extensively and thoroughly considered and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence. Appellant makes no showing that the “ends of justice” [Sanders, supra, p. 15, 83 S.Ct. 1068] require further inquiry.

(2) The transcript of the proceeding on appellant’s arraignment for plea affirmatively shows full compliance with Rule 11.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant sought post conviction relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He urged two grounds: (1) his mental incompetency at the time he pled guilty, and (2) the district court’s failure to comply with Rule 11, F.R.Crim.P., which prohibits acceptance of such a plea “without (the court’s) first addressing the defendant personally and determining that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea.”

The district court dismissed the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing.

(1) A sentencing court is generally not required to entertain a second motion for 2255 relief on a ground previously heard and determined. Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963). That rule applies here. Appellant, shortly after being sentenced, moved to withdraw his plea. The ground was mental incompetency. A hearing was held. His motion was denied. The transcript of that hearing reveals that the issue was extensively and thoroughly considered and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence. Appellant makes no showing that the “ends of justice” [Sanders, supra, p. 15, 83 S.Ct. 1068] require further inquiry.

(2) The transcript of the proceeding on appellant’s arraignment for plea affirmatively shows full compliance with Rule 11.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

466 F.2d 672, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-allen-williams-v-united-states-ca9-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack