TINY GLEN A. SEARS, 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.
A motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is not the proper vehicle to challenge the sufficiency of evidence or raise claims about unsummoned witnesses or lack of a bill of particulars.
Appellant sought to vacate his sentence for Mann Act violation, alleging various grounds including lack of a bill of particulars, perjured testimony, …
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 Perjured Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant sought, by a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, to be relieved of the sentence imposed upon his conviction for violation of the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2421. He asserts, as grounds for the relief sought, that he was not furnished with a bill of particulars; that he was convicted on perjured testimony; that witnesses were not summoned to testify on his behalf; that the evidence does not support the verdict; and that his attorney was inexperienced and did not properly represent him. The district court determined that the motion should be denied. From the order denying the motion this appeal was taken.
There was no request made, by motion or otherwise, for a bill of particulars and hence there was no duty of furnishing such information.
No request was made by appellant that witnesses be summoned, and no statement is now made as to the names of those whose testimony might be material or the testimony that might be expected from them. This contention is without merit.
If relief is to be obtained because a conviction results from perjured testimony it must appear that such testimony was known to be false by the agents of or counsel for the Government. Taylor v. United States, 8 Cir., 1956, 229 F. 2d 826, -certiorari denied 351 U.S. 986, 76 S.Ct. 1055, 100 L.Ed. 1500; Taylor v. United States, 9 Cir., 1955, 221 F. 2d 228. Cf. Smith v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 252 F. 2d 369, certiorari denied 357 U.S. 939, 78 S.Ct. 1388, 2 L.Ed. 2d 1552. It was not asserted that anyone acting for the Government knew that any perjured testimony was used. The appellant did not specify which witnesses made false statements nor which statements made by witnesses were false. In fact, there was no showing made that any false testimony was offered at the trial. The appellant cannot succeed on this contention.
The claim that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict might have been raised on appeal but not on a Section 2255 motion. Smith v. United States, supra. Arthur v. United States, 5 Cir., 1956, 230 F. 2d 666; McCreary v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 249 F. 2d 433, certiorari denied 356 U.S. 945, 78 S.Ct. 792, 2 L.Ed.2d 820.
The counsel representing the appellant was of his own selection. Nothing done or omitted by counsel resulted in the deprivation of the appellant of any constitutional right. In such circumstances no right is shown to relief under Section 2255. See Sheridan v. United States, 5 Cir., 1959, 264 F. 2d 236.
The order denying the appellant’s motion was correct. It is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Simpson v. State, 164 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
-
Bruce Hinson Gammage and Larry v. Gysin, 162 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
-
Feldman v. State, 212 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Taylor v. United States, 229 F.2d 826 (8th Cir. 1956)
- Brown v. United States, 351 U.S. 986 (U.S. 1956)
- Williams v. Michigan, 351 U.S. 986 (U.S. 1956)
- Arthur v. United States, 230 F.2d 666 (5th Cir. 1956)
- Taylor v. United States, 221 F.2d 228 (9th Cir. 1955)
- McCREARY v. United States, 249 F.2d 433 (5th Cir. 1957)
- Smith v. United States, 252 F.2d 369 (5th Cir. 1958)
- Chapman v. United States, 356 U.S. 945 (U.S. 1958)
- Welsh v. New York, 356 U.S. 945 (U.S. 1958)
- Smith v. United States, 357 U.S. 939 (U.S. 1958)