Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

177 F.2d 894

Docket Nos. 3936, 3956.

Hurst v. United States

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Nov. 2, 1949.

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1949-11-02

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Section 2255, supra, does not give a prisoner the right to obtain a review, first by the court which imposed the sentence and then on appeal from a denial of a motion to errors or must be raised by timely appeal. The purpose of the section was not to confer a broader right of attack upon a judgment and sentence than might theretofore have been made by habeas corpus, but rather to provide that the attack which theretofore might have been made in some other court through resort to habeas corpus, must now be made by motion in the sentencing court, unless it shall appear that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the prisoner’s detention. While the form of attack is direct, the grounds therefor are limited to matters that may be raised on collateral attack.” 1”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Ellison v. United States

“"Relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 may be granted only where it appears `that the judgment was rendered without jurisdiction, or that the sentence imposed was not authorized by law or otherwise open to collateral attack, or that there has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack.' It should be borne in mind that the purpose of the section was not to enlarge the class of attacks which may be made upon a judgment of conviction, but to provide that the attack must be made in the court where the sentence was imposed and not in some other court through resort to habeas corpus, unless it appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate."”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 160 So. 2d 730 - Austin v. State

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Sunal v. Large · Sunal v. Large · Taylor v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1949-11-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently December 1971 · most notably Porth v. Templar (1971), Barnes v. Hunter (1951)

37 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

2501949195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Fred M. Mazzulla, Denver, Colo., for appellants.

¶2Paul Gotcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., Mc-Alester, Okl. (Cleon A. Summers, U. S. Atty., Muskogee, Okl. on the brief), for appellee.

¶3Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and BRATTON and MURRAH, • Circuit Judges.

¶4PHILLIPS, Chief Judge.

¶5These are appeals from orders denying motions made under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, to vacate sentences of imprisonment.

¶6Doll and Hurst were tried and convicted on an indictment charging a violation of 12 U.S.C.A. § 588b, [now 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113] and each was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years. Neither appealed from his judgment of conviction and the time for appeal had expired when the motions to vacate were filed.

¶7During the trial, the United States sought to introduce in evidence written statements, one signed by Doll and the other by Hurst. Doll and Hurst interposed motions to suppress the statements. After a full hearing in the absence of the jury on the motions to suppress, the sentencing court concluded that there was no valid objection to the introduction of the statements in evidence and overruled the motion to suppress and later overruled objections to the admission of the statements in evidence.

¶8*895Each petitioner grounded his motion primarily on the alleged erroneous admission of the written statement made hy him.

¶9The pertinent provisions of § 2255, supra, are set out in marginal note 1.

¶10That section does not give a prisoner the right to obtain a review, first by the court which imposed the sentence and then on appeal from a denial of a motion to vacate, of errors of fact or law that must be raised 'by timely appeal.2 It does not enlarge the class of attacks which may be made upon a judgment of conviction, but provides that the attack must be made in the court where the sentence was imposed and not in some other court through resort to habeas corpus, unless it appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate.3 It is limited to matters that may be raised by collateral attack.4 It is only where the judgment was rendered without jurisdiction, the sentence imposed was not authorized by law, or there was such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack that a motion to vacate will lie under such section.

¶11Errors in admission of evidence must be raised by appeal and do not constitute a basis for collateral attack.5

¶12The other matters set up as grounds for the motions are clearly without substance.

¶13Affirmed.

¶14BRATTON, Circuit Judge, concurs in the result.

/177/f2d/894 · .json · Public domain