JAMES EDWARD WINGO, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a motion to vacate judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is not the proper avenue to raise issues that could have been raised on direct appeal, and that the current proceeding is premature.
Appellant sought to vacate a federal judgment based on prejudicial newspaper publicity during his trial. He introduced newspaper articles but no other…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Vacate Judgment And Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, in this proceeding under Section 2255, Title 28 U.S.Code, seeks to vacate judgment imposed in the U. S. District Court on the ground of prejudicial newspaper publicity during the overnight recess of the jury, during which the jurors separated and went to their respective homes. Briggs v. United States, 6 Cir., 221 F. 2d 636, 638. Following a hearing in which appellant introduced the newspaper articles complained of but no other evidence on the issue, the District Judge dismissed the proceeding.
The question presented could have and should have been raised by motion for mistrial in the trial of the case in the District Court. No appeal was taken from the judgment on the verdict. Compare Briggs v. United States, supra; Krogmann v. United States, 6 Cir., 225 F. 2d 220, 228. The provisions of Section 2255, Title 28 U.S.Code, cannot be used as a substitute for appeal. Sunal v. Large, 332 U.S. 174, 178-179, 67 S.Ct. 1588, 91 L.Ed. 1982; Ford v. United States, 6 Cir., 234 F. 2d 835, 836.
The appellant is in custody under a state sentence, not the sentence in the federal court, which he is attacking in this proceeding. If the sentence under attack should be held invalid, it would not result in appellant’s release from confinement. The present proceeding is premature and will not lie. Duggins v. United States, 6 Cir., 240 F. 2d 479.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Houser v. United States, 508 F.2d 509 (8th Cir. 1974)
-
Larson v. United States, 275 F.2d 673 (5th Cir. 1960)
-
Ellison v. United States, 263 F.2d 395 (10th Cir. 1959)
Authorities Cited
- Sunal v. Large, 332 U.S. 174 (U.S. 1947)
- Duggins v. United States, 240 F.2d 479 (6th Cir. 1957)
- Krogmann v. United States, 225 F.2d 220 (6th Cir. 1955)
- Briggs v. The United States, 221 F.2d 636 (6th Cir. 1955)
- Ford v. United States, 234 F.2d 835 (6th Cir. 1956)