Thomas E. Young v. United States

457 F.2d 800, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10494
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMarch 27, 1972
Docket71-1617
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 457 F.2d 800 (Thomas E. Young v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Thomas E. Young v. United States, 457 F.2d 800, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10494 (8th Cir. 1972).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case was brought by petitioner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to set aside the sentence imposed upon him in 1952 following a plea of guilty to charges alleging interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle. Young’s attack on his conviction and sentence is one of many 2255 motions we have considered. 1

The trial court in this case determined that petitioner’s claims were based essentially on the same grounds previously raised and denied by this Court. His claim that the convicting court did not comply with Rule 11 in accepting his guilty plea was refuted by this Court in Young v. United States, 423 F.2d 677 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 915, 90 S.Ct. 2221, 26 L.Ed.2d 574 (1970); and his claim that he was not properly advised of his right to counsel was fully answered in Young v. United States, 228 F.2d 693 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 913, 76 S.Ct. 704, 100 L.Ed. 1447 (1956). The trial court then denied the motion on the basis of that part of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 which provides: “The sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion *801 for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner.”

We have carefully considered the allegations of the petitioner in light of the earlier cases and agree with Judge Davies that the points raised in this ease are essentially the same as those raised and decided by us on earlier motions. The judgment is affirmed.

1

. Young v. United States, 228 F.2d 698 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 913, 76 S.Ct. 704, 100 L.Ed. 1447 (1956) ; 246 F.2d 901 (8th Cir. 1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 917, 78 S.Ct. 348, 2 L.Ed.2d 277 (1958) ; 259 F.2d 641 (8th Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 917, 79 S.Ct. 595, 3 L.Ed.2d 579 (1959) ; 274 F.2d 698 (8th Cir. 1960), aff’d sub nom. Payne v. Madigan, 366 U.S. 761, 81 S.Ct. 1670, 6 L.Ed.2d 853 (1961) ; 300 F.Supp. 373 (D.N.D.1969), aff’d 423 F.2d 677 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 915, 90 S.Ct. 2221, 26 L.Ed.2d 574 (1970).

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

Related

Nathaniel Vincent v. United States
488 F.2d 1109 (Eighth Circuit, 1973)
Charles B. Patrick v. United States
466 F.2d 502 (Eighth Circuit, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
457 F.2d 800, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-e-young-v-united-states-ca8-1972.