James F. Hanley v. United States

222 F.2d 566, 95 U.S. App. D.C. 400, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3856
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided May 19, 1955·No. 12525·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Indicted in two counts charging respectively housebreaking and grand larceny, James F. Hanley was found guilty of both offenses by a jury in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. He was sentenced to imprisonment for from four to twelve years on the housebreaking count, and to a term of one year on the larceny charge, the sentences to run concurrently. He did not appeal. Some nine months after the sentences were pronounced, Hanley filed a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, asserting the trial judge should have sua sponte directed an acquittal on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offenses. Cf. Rule 29(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C. This appeal is from the order which denied the motion.

A question as to the sufficiency of the proofs at the trial in which the prisoner was convicted cannot be raised by a motion to vacate under § 2255. Finan v. United States, 4 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 850.

Affirmed.

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

James F. Hanley v. United States, 222 F.2d 566, 95 U.S. App. D.C. 400, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3856 (D.C. Cir. 1955).

222 F.2d 566 (James F. Hanley v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Joseph M. Brule v. United States
240 F.2d 589 (Ninth Circuit, 1957)
Roland Hall v. United States
235 F.2d 838 (D.C. Circuit, 1956)
Samuel Wrightson v. United States
222 F.2d 556 (D.C. Circuit, 1955)