THOMAS E. YOUNG, 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 successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, raising claims previously denied, need not be entertained.
Petitioner filed a motion to set aside his sentence, alleging issues with his guilty plea and advice of counsel. These claims had been previously rais…
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 Successive Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case was brought by petitioner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to set aside the sentence imposed upon him in 1952 following a plea of guilty to charges alleging interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle. Young’s attack on his conviction and sentence is one of many 2255 motions we have considered.1
The trial court in this case determined that petitioner’s claims were based essentially on the same grounds previously raised and denied by this Court. His claim that the convicting court did not comply with Rule 11 in accepting his guilty plea was refuted by this Court in Young v. United States, 423 F. 2d 677 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 915, 90 S.Ct. 2221, 26 L.Ed.2d 574 (1970); and his claim that he was not properly advised of his right to counsel was fully answered in Young v. United States, 228 F. 2d 693 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 913, 76 S.Ct. 704, 100 L.Ed. 1447 (1956). The trial court then denied the motion on the basis of that part of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 which provides: “The sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner.”
We have carefully considered the allegations of the petitioner in light of the earlier cases and agree with Judge Davies that the points raised in this ease are essentially the same as those raised and decided by us on earlier motions. The judgment is affirmed.
. Young v. United States, 228 F. 2d 698 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 913, 76 S.Ct. 704, 100 L.Ed. 1447 (1956) ; 246 F. 2d 901 (8th Cir. 1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 917, 78 S.Ct. 348, 2 L.Ed.2d 277 (1958) ; 259 F. 2d 641 (8th Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 917, 79 S.Ct. 595, 3 L.Ed.2d 579 (1959) ; 274 F. 2d 698 (8th Cir. 1960), aff’d sub nom. Payne v. Madigan, 366 U.S. 761, 81 S.Ct. 1670, 6 L.Ed.2d 853 (1961) ; 300 F.Supp. 373 (D.N.D.1969), aff’d 423 F. 2d 677 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 915, 90 S.Ct. 2221, 26 L.Ed.2d 574 (1970).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whitney v. United States, 513 F.2d 326 (8th Cir. 1974)
-
Vincent v. United States, 488 F.2d 1109 (8th Cir. 1973)
-
Patrick v. United States, 466 F.2d 502 (8th Cir. 1972)
Authorities Cited (13 total)
- Payne v. Madigan, 366 U.S. 761 (U.S. 1961)
- Mills v. United States, 399 U.S. 915 (U.S. 1970)
- Unger v. United States, 399 U.S. 915 (U.S. 1970)
- Green v. United States, 359 U.S. 917 (U.S. 1959)
- Young et ux. v. United States, 359 U.S. 917 (U.S. 1959)
- Young v. United States, 274 F.2d 698 (8th Cir. 1960)
- Young v. United States, 228 F.2d 693 (8th Cir. 1956)
- Young v. United States, 246 F.2d 901 (8th Cir. 1957)
- Young v. United States, 259 F.2d 641 (8th Cir. 1958)
- Young v. United States, 423 F.2d 677 (8th Cir. 1970)