Norman Deforrest Maner v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Norman Deforrest Maner v. United States

429 F.2d 578, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7718

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 13, 1970

Docket29055

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 429 F.2d 578 (Norman Deforrest Maner 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

Norman Deforrest Maner v. United States, 429 F.2d 578, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7718 (5th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is taken from an order of the district court denying the motion of a federal convict to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm. 1

Appellant, represented by court-appointed counsel, was convicted of his plea of guilty of bank robbery, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). He was sentenced on July 12, 1968, to 20 years imprisonment.

In his motion to vacate sentence appellant alleged that his plea of guilty was induced by promises of court-appointed counsel and the U. S. Attorney that he would be given a 7-year sentence, and that he was mentally incompetent due to drug addiction at the time he pled guilty. An evidentiary hearing was held at which time appellant withdrew his contention of mental incompetence.

The court below denied relief, finding that no promises or assurances of a particular sentence were made to appellant to induce the plea, and that the plea was voluntarily and understandingly entered. Appellant and his former wife testified that counsel stated to appellant that the United States Attorney had agreed to a “deal” whereby appellant would be sentenced to seven to ten years for treatment for his drug addiction in the hospital in Lexington, Kentucky, in return for a guilty plea. However, counsel testified that appellant asked him to arrange a “deal” for a sentence with the judge and United States Attorney, but that he advised appellant that in federal courts the sentence is entirely in the discretion of the judge and that no “deal” could be made. He stated that he further advised appellant that he was not eligible for treatment at Lexington due to his past record. He denied that he promised appellant that he would receive a specific sentence, but rather told him that there was no way to know what sentence the judge was going to impose, and that he could receive up to twenty years.

The district court, making a credibility decision, found the testimony of court-appointed counsel to express the facts. We perceive no clear error in the court’s findings of fact and application of the law, therefore the judgment below is affirmed. Hardin v. United States, 5th Cir. 1969, 410 F.2d 146, Goodwin v. United States, 5th Cir. 1968, 391 F.2d 278.

Affirmed.

1

. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s Local Rule 9(c) (2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, 5th Cir. 1969, 412 F.2d 981.

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

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is taken from an order of the district court denying the motion of a federal convict to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm. 1

Appellant, represented by court-appointed counsel, was convicted of his plea of guilty of bank robbery, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). He was sentenced on July 12, 1968, to 20 years imprisonment.

In his motion to vacate sentence appellant alleged that his plea of guilty was induced by promises of court-appointed counsel and the U. S. Attorney that he would be given a 7-year sentence, and that he was mentally incompetent due to drug addiction at the time he pled guilty. An evidentiary hearing was held at which time appellant withdrew his contention of mental incompetence.

The court below denied relief, finding that no promises or assurances of a particular sentence were made to appellant to induce the plea, and that the plea was voluntarily and understandingly entered. Appellant and his former wife testified that counsel stated to appellant that the United States Attorney had agreed to a “deal” whereby appellant would be sentenced to seven to ten years for treatment for his drug addiction in the hospital in Lexington, Kentucky, in return for a guilty plea. However, counsel testified that appellant asked him to arrange a “deal” for a sentence with the judge and United States Attorney, but that he advised appellant that in federal courts the sentence is entirely in the discretion of the judge and that no “deal” could be made. He stated that he further advised appellant that he was not eligible for treatment at Lexington due to his past record. He denied that he promised appellant that he would receive a specific sentence, but rather told him that there was no way to know what sentence the judge was going to impose, and that he could receive up to twenty years.

The district court, making a credibility decision, found the testimony of court-appointed counsel to express the facts. We perceive no clear error in the court’s findings of fact and application of the law, therefore the judgment below is affirmed. Hardin v. United States, 5th Cir. 1969, 410 F.2d 146, Goodwin v. United States, 5th Cir. 1968, 391 F.2d 278.

Affirmed.

1

. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s Local Rule 9(c) (2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, 5th Cir. 1969, 412 F.2d 981.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

429 F.2d 578, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norman-deforrest-maner-v-united-states-ca5-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack