HARREL WAYNE HARDIN, 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 the district court did not err in denying the motion to vacate the sentence, as the evidence refuted the appellant's claims.
Appellant pleaded guilty to three counts of post office burglary and was sentenced. He later filed a motion to vacate his sentence, alleging ineffecti…
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 Plenary Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to new Rule 18 of the Rules of this court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F. 2d 804, Part I [dated March 11, 1969].
This is an appeal from the denial of a motion to vacate the sentence of a federal prisoner. 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The appellant was convicted upon his plea of guilty to a three-count Information charging three burglaries of United States Post Offices. He was sentenced to a 5-year term on Count I, a 3-year term to run consecutively on Count II, and a 3-year term on Count III to run concurrently with Count II.
The appellant contends that he did not make an intelligent waiver of his right to counsel; that he was not represented by counsel at any stage of the proceedings; and that his plea of guilty was the product of illegally-taken statements and coercion through threat of a life sentence being imposed in a pending state case as an habitual criminal.
From the evidence presented at the plenary hearing, the District Court was entitled to conclude that appellant’s testimony attacking the guilty plea was convincingly refuted by Postal Inspector Powell. We find no error in the proceedings below. See Goodwin v. United States, (5 Cir., 1968) 391 F. 2d 278.
The judgment of the District Court is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maner v. United States, 429 F.2d 578 (5th Cir. 1970)
Authorities Cited
- Murphy v. Houma Well Serv., 409 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Goodwin v. United States, 391 F.2d 278 (5th Cir. 1968)