JAMES H. BROWN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT-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 petitioner filing a motion to vacate sentence has a right to have findings entered by the court.
Appellant sought to vacate his federal sentence for bank robbery, alleging multiple grounds for relief. The district court denied the motion without a…
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 Direct Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
INGRAHAM, Circuit Judge:
The district court has denied without an evidentiary hearing the appellant’s motion to vacate his federal sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We vacate and remand.
Appellant is presently serving a 17-year sentence for bank robbery, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). This Court affirmed on direct appeal in United States v. Brown, 5th Cir. 1970, 432 F. 2d 552. In his § 2255 motion to vacate sentence, a lengthy document, appellant enumerates a dozen grounds for relief. The district court denied relief without making any findings of operative fact. Instead, the Court found that the record of the original trial and appeal
“ . . . conclusively demonstrate that each of Brown’s allegations of error is completely false, or is not of such nature as to warrant relief under § 2255, or is based upon matters raised during the trial of his case, ruled on by the Court at that time, and was therefore subject to a direct appeal from his original conviction.”
Where a petitioner, in a § 2255 motion, states facts which, if true, would entitle him to relief, this court has held, “One filing a motion under that statute [28 U.S.C. § 2255] has a right to have findings entered in order that he might know the basis for the court’s disposition of his claims.” Gallegos v. United States, 5th Cir. 1972, 466 F. 2d 740. In his § 2255 motion appellant presented some grounds which are patently lacking in merit. However, there are others which, if substantiated, would entitle him to relief.
Furthermore, the district court must consider the merits of issues raised in a § 2255 motion even if those issues could have been raised on direct appeal. Kaufman v. United States, 1969, 394 U.S. 217, 89 S.Ct. 1068, 22 L.Ed.2d 227; Randall v. United States, 5th Cir. 1972, 454 F. 2d 1132. We therefore vacate the judgment below and remand to allow the district court to consider the merits of those issues. On remand the court below will also make findings of operative fact and conclusions of law on all of appellant’s allegations.
Vacated and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Kaufman v. United States, 394 U.S. 217 (U.S. 1969)
- Herminio H. Gallegos v. United States, 466 F.2d 740 (5th Cir. 1972)
- Randall v. United States, 454 F.2d 1132 (5th Cir. 1972)
- United States v. Brown, 432 F.2d 552 (5th Cir. 1970)