Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

282 F.2d 942

Docket No. 18437.

Meadows v. United States

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Oct. 27, 1960.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1960-10-27

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 1973

9 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"We think that the allegations of the motion, inartful though they be, are sufficient to set forth the contention that the appellant's mental condition was such that he could not and did not make intelligent waivers and plea. His statements of the prior determination of a mental illess takes the motion out of the category of frivolous claims and requires a hearing. Bishop v. United States, 350 U.S. 961 , 76 S.Ct. 440 , 100 L.Ed. 835 ; Gregori v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 243 F.2d 47 ; Brown v. United States, 5 Cir., 1959, 267 F.2d 42 ."”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Fisher v. United States, 164 So. 2d 229 - Knight v. State

“the irresponsible acts held against him at his trial were acts beyond the control of petitioner which happen when his war scrambled brains failed to function like a normal person.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 164 So. 2d 229 - Knight v. State

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2312 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on V. P. Serodino, Inc. v. United States · Brown v. United States · Gregori v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1960-10-27

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Orley Edward Meadows, in pro. per.

¶2Richard W. Ervin, III, Asst. U. S. Atty., Tallahassee, Fla., for appellee.

¶3Before TUTTLE, JONES and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

¶4JONES, Circuit Judge.

¶5The appellant waived indictment, waived counsel and venue, and entered a plea of guilty to an information charging a Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312, violation. He was given a four-year sentence. He filed a motion in the district court under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, seeking to have the judgment and sentence vacated. In the motion the appellant states that he was not guilty of the offense. The appellant, in his motion, filed in propria personae, says that he “was discharged from the armed forces as a pyscho neurosis patient” and that “the irresponsible acts held against him at his trial were acts beyond the control of petitioner which happen when his war scrambled brains failed to function like a normal person”. The district court, without a hearing, entered an order denying the motion. From the order this appeal was taken.

¶6We think that the allegations of the motion, inartful though they be, are sufficient to set forth the contention that the appellant’s mental condition was such that he could not and did not make intelligent waivers and plea. His statements of the prior determination of a mental illness takes the motion out of the category of frivolous claims and requires a hearing. Bishop v. United States, 350 U.S. 961, 76 S.Ct. 440,100 L.Ed. 835; Gregori v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 243 F.2d 47; Brown v. United States, 5 Cir., 1959, 267 F.2d 42.

¶7In order that there may be a hearing upon the appellant’s motion, the order of, the district .court is..

¶8Reversed. . ,

/282/f2d/942 · .json · Public domain