United States v. Leon George Wagner

309 F.2d 7, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3951
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedOctober 10, 1962
Docket14923
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 309 F.2d 7 (United States v. Leon George Wagner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Leon George Wagner, 309 F.2d 7, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3951 (6th Cir. 1962).

Opinion

ORDER

This is an appeal from the District Court’s denial of appellant’s motion under Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate sentence of seventeen (17) years’ imprisonment entered by the District Judge upon a plea of guilty to four separate offenses of bank robbery, Title 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d). The appeal has been considered upon briefs submitted by the appellant and the government;

AND IT APPEARING that illegal arrest, illegal detention, and illegal search and seizure are the ultimate bases of this motion to vacate sentence and that grounds of this nature are not proper grounds in a Section 2255 proceeding, as this Court has held in United States v. Shields, 291 F.2d 798, C.A.6, (1961); cert. denied 368 U.S. 933, 82 S.Ct. 371, 7 L.Ed.2d 196;

AND IT FURTHER APPEARING that appellant understandingly and voluntarily entered his guilty plea after waiver of right to counsel and a full explanation by the Court concerning the nature and consequences of such plea;

AND IT FURTHER APPEARING that sentence imposed after such plea is not subject to attack on the theory that a confession was unlawfully obtained and inadmissible in evidence, and that except for such confession defendant would not have pleaded guilty, United States v. French, 274 F.2d 297, C.A.7 (1960);

AND IT FURTHER APPEARING that there was no reversible error in the rulings by the District Judge on the motion to vacate sentence herein;

It Is Hereby Ordered and Adjudged that the District Court’s denial of appellant’s motion to vacate sentence is in all things affirmed.

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

Related

Robert E. Meyer v. United States
424 F.2d 1181 (Eighth Circuit, 1970)
Albert Lonzo Cantrell v. United States
413 F.2d 629 (Eighth Circuit, 1969)
State v. Williams
430 P.2d 105 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1967)
Master Sutton v. United States
352 F.2d 52 (Fifth Circuit, 1965)
Sligh v. State of North Carolina
246 F. Supp. 865 (E.D. North Carolina, 1965)
Baker v. Bailey
246 F. Supp. 131 (E.D. North Carolina, 1965)
Johnny Foster v. United States
345 F.2d 675 (Sixth Circuit, 1965)
Williams v. United States
236 F. Supp. 648 (E.D. Missouri, 1964)
McKenley v. United States
235 F. Supp. 255 (E.D. Louisiana, 1964)
McFarlane v. United States
231 F. Supp. 191 (S.D. New York, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
309 F.2d 7, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-leon-george-wagner-ca6-1962.