Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

430 F.2d 1173

Docket No. 29504.

Owens v. United States

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided July 17, 1970.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1970-07-17

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 1973

5 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

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

Relies on Kimbrough v. Beto

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1970-07-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Max Jerome Owens, pro se.

¶2John L. Briggs, U. S. Atty., John D. Roberts, Asst. U. S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., for appellee.

¶3Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM:

¶5This appeal is from the District Court's denial of appellant’s motion to vacate judgment and sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm.1

¶6Appellant pled guilty to a Dyer Act violation 2 and was sentenced on July 21, 1967 to serve four years. His sole contention on appeal is that he was mentally incompetent at the time he pled guilty, and that his trial court erred in accepting his plea without first determining his competency to stand trial.

¶7The record before this Court discloses that on October 11, 1967 the appellant filed a motion to vacate in his trial court, wherein the identical contention was presented. On December 27, 1967, the district court denied § 2255 relief, concluding that the appellant had been mentally competent at the time of his arraignment and his sentencing. Thereafter on June 25, 1968, this Court denied the appellant leave to appeal in forma pauperis, because of the insubstantiality of his contentions.

¶8The district court denied the appellant’s more recent § 2255 motion on grounds that it was a successive similar petition. We find no error in this ruling, and accordingly we affirm the judgment below.

¶9Affirmed.

/430/f2d/1173 · .json · Public domain