Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

367 F.2d 143

Docket No. 23376.

Williams v. United States

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Oct. 10, 1966.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1966-10-10

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently July 1975

3 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

1 counsel of record

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Sanders v. United States · Continental Ore Company v. Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation · Gregori v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1966-10-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Aaron A. Foosaner, Miami, Fla., for appellee.

¶2Before RIVES, BELL and THORN-BERRY, Circuit Judges.

¶3PER CURIAM:

¶4The District Court denied appellant’s motion brought under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate his sentence. There was no hearing. Appellant is serving a ten year sentence on a plea of guilty to a charge of violating the narcotic laws. 18 U.S. C.A. § 371. The fair inference from his inartfully drawn pleadings is that two contentions were made to the District Court. First, his sentence is invalid because he was mentally incompetent when he entered the plea of guilty, and second, because of promises made by his attorney. We limit our review to these contentions.

¶5These allegations, mere conclusions, are not supported by a single allegation of fact. There is some suggestion in a brief, filed in the District Court on a motion for reconsideration that appellant had “a history of being a narcotic addict”, and there is also an allegation that he was not advised by the court of his right to request a mental examination. An allegation of a history of addiction, without more, is likewise a mere conclusion and is not a sufficient factual allegation to require a hearing. Also, without some indication of incompetency and none is alleged, there would be no occasion for the sentencing court to advise a defendant that he might request a mental examination. Thus there was no error in denying relief. Cf. Sanders v. United States, 1963, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S. Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148.

¶6This is not to say, however, that appellant may not file an additional petition for relief alleging the underlying facts of his contentions if any he has. As examples of decisions where the allegations of fact have been found sufficient to require a hearing in the District Court on an allegation of mental incompeteney, see Floyd v. United States, 5 Cir., 1966, 365 F.2d 368, [September 21, 1966]; Anderson v. United States, 5 Cir., 1962, 318 F.2d 815; Praylow v. United States, 5 Cir., 1962, 298 F.2d 792; Alexander v. *144United States, 5 Cir., 1961, 290 F.2d 252, cert. den., 368 U.S. 891, 82 S.Ct. 144, 7 L.Ed.2d 89; Brown v. United States, 5 Cir., 1959, 267 F.2d 42; Gregori v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 243 F.2d 48.

¶7Affirmed.

/367/f2d/143 · .json · Public domain