Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

324 F.2d 632

Docket No. 7466.

Bailey v. United States

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Nov. 19, 1963.

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1963-11-19

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 1975

9 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

2 counsel of record

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

Relies on Bailey v. United States · Sullivan v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1963-11-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Erwin A. Cook, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.

¶2Robert M. Green, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., District of Kansas, was with him on the brief), for appellee.

¶3Before PICKETT, LEWIS, and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5For the second time appellant is here seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 from a sentence imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 2113. The trial court, without a hearing, denied relief. On his prior application appellant contended that his guilty plea was not made voluntarily and understanding^. The trial court held to the contrary and we affirmed. Bailey v. United States, 10 Cir., 312 F.2d 679.

¶6Appellant now contends that the sentence should be vacated because the prosecution followed an illegal arrest and search. We have held to the contrary in a case brought by a codefendant. See Sullivan v. United States, 10 Cir., 315 F.2d 304.

¶7Appellant says that the present application should not have been denied without a hearing. The contention is without merit. As we pointed out in Sullivan, if the guilty plea was voluntary, the allegedly illegal conduct is no ground for relief under § 2255. In the prior § 2255 application we held that the guilty plea was made knowingly and voluntarily.

¶8Affirmed.

/324/f2d/632 · .json · Public domain