Johnnie Lintond Tillis v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Johnnie Lintond Tillis v. United States

449 F.2d 224, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7641

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 12, 1971

Docket71-2081_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 449 F.2d 224 (Johnnie Lintond Tillis 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

Johnnie Lintond Tillis v. United States, 449 F.2d 224, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7641 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed. 1 See Local Rule 21. 2

1

. The sole contention in this 2255 proceeding was that the trial judge in effect promised the movant probation if he would plead guilty. This is refuted by the transcript of the proceedings in open court, by the “court’s own recollection” as stated in the trial judge’s order, and by affidavits of the movant’s former counsel and of the U. S. Attorney. While we have held, Powers v. United States, 5 Cir. 1971, 446 F.2d 22; Martin v. United States, 5 Cir. 1971, 447 F.2d 985 that controverted issues of fact in Section 2255 proceedings may not be adjudicated on the basis of affidavits, this case contains no bona fide controverted issues, and the trial court was not required in these circumstances to hold an evidentiary hearing. See Streator v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 395 F.2d 661. The propriety of admitting the former counsel’s affidavit as an exception to the attorney-client privilege is governed by our en banc decision in Woodall v. United States, 5 Cir. 1971, 438 F.2d 1317.

2

. See NLRB v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 5 Cir. 1970, 430 F.2d 966.

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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed. 1 See Local Rule 21. 2

1

. The sole contention in this 2255 proceeding was that the trial judge in effect promised the movant probation if he would plead guilty. This is refuted by the transcript of the proceedings in open court, by the “court’s own recollection” as stated in the trial judge’s order, and by affidavits of the movant’s former counsel and of the U. S. Attorney. While we have held, Powers v. United States, 5 Cir. 1971, 446 F.2d 22; Martin v. United States, 5 Cir. 1971, 447 F.2d 985 that controverted issues of fact in Section 2255 proceedings may not be adjudicated on the basis of affidavits, this case contains no bona fide controverted issues, and the trial court was not required in these circumstances to hold an evidentiary hearing. See Streator v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 395 F.2d 661. The propriety of admitting the former counsel’s affidavit as an exception to the attorney-client privilege is governed by our en banc decision in Woodall v. United States, 5 Cir. 1971, 438 F.2d 1317.

2

. See NLRB v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 5 Cir. 1970, 430 F.2d 966.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

449 F.2d 224, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnnie-lintond-tillis-v-united-states-ca5-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack