TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Leon George Wagner

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leon George WAGNER, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Wagner, 309 F.2d 7 (6th Cir. 1962)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 10, 1962
Docket
No. 14923
Judges
McAllister, Darr, Boyd
Citations
309 F.2d 71962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3951

Opinion

ORDER This is an appeal from the District Court’s denial of appellant’s motion under Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , to vacate sentence of seventeen (17) years’ imprisonment entered by the District Judge upon a plea of guilty to four separate offenses of bank robbery, Title 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a) and (d). The appeal has been considered upon briefs submitted by the appellant and the government;

AND IT APPEARING that illegal arrest, illegal detention, and illegal search and seizure are the ultimate bases of this motion to vacate sentence and that grounds of this nature are not proper grounds in a Section 2255 proceeding, as this Court has held in United States v. Shields, 291 F.2d 798 , C.A.6, (1961); cert. denied 368 U.S. 933 , 82 S.Ct. 371 , 7 L.Ed.2d 196 ;

AND IT FURTHER APPEARING that appellant understandingly and voluntarily entered his guilty plea after waiver of right to counsel and a full explanation by the Court concerning the nature and consequences of such plea;

AND IT FURTHER APPEARING that sentence imposed after such plea is not subject to attack on the theory that a confession was unlawfully obtained and inadmissible in evidence, and that except for such confession defendant would not have pleaded guilty, United States v. French, 274 F.2d 297 , C.A.7 (1960);

AND IT FURTHER APPEARING that there was no reversible error in the rulings by the District Judge on the motion to vacate sentence herein;

It Is Hereby Ordered and Adjudged that the District Court’s denial of appellant’s motion to vacate sentence is in all things affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1964: 31965: 41967: 11969: 11970: 119642026peak 1965 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Robert E. Meyer v. United States424 F.2d 1181 (8th Cir. 1970)
  2. Johnny Foster v. United States345 F.2d 675 (6th Cir. 1965)
  3. Albert Lonzo Cantrell v. United States413 F.2d 629 (8th Cir. 1969)
  4. State v. Williams430 P.2d 105 (N.M. 1967)
  5. McFarlane v. United States231 F. Supp. 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1964)
  6. McKenley v. United States235 F. Supp. 255 (E.D. La. 1964)

Most recent

  1. Robert E. Meyer v. United States424 F.2d 1181 (8th Cir. 1970)
  2. Albert Lonzo Cantrell v. United States413 F.2d 629 (8th Cir. 1969)
  3. State v. Williams430 P.2d 105 (N.M. 1967)
  4. Master Sutton v. United States352 F.2d 52 (5th Cir. 1965)
  5. Sligh v. State of North Carolina246 F. Supp. 865 (E.D.N.C. 1965)
  6. Baker v. Bailey246 F. Supp. 131 (E.D.N.C. 1965)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. French, 274 F.2d 297 (7th Cir. 1960) 38
United States v. Shields, 291 F.2d 798 (6th Cir. 1961) 31

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list