Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive
Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
John Paul Harris, v. United States of America
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. - 216 F.2d 953
November 23, 1954
William M. Steger, U. S. Atty., Harlon E. Martin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Tyler, Tex., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, C. J., and BORAH and RIVES, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order denying a Section 2255 petition to set aside a judgment of conviction. What and all that is in question here is whether the district judge correctly determined, after hearing witnesses including the petitioner, that there was no factual basis for petitioner's claim that the plea of guilty he had entered, and on the basis of which he had been sentenced, was entered voluntarily and understandingly or was extorted from him by threats or promises.
In an unpublished opinion filed as findings of fact and conclusions of law, the district judge, carefully discussing and quite correctly weighing the testimony, determined the issue against the petitioner.
The issues of fact raised by the motion to vacate the judgment and sentence and to withdraw the plea of guilty were for the trial court to resolve, and its decision may not be overturned1 on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous and constitutes an abuse of discretion.
Without undertaking to set out the facts as disclosed by the full record made, it is sufficient to say that a consideration of the almost incredible testimony of the petitioner, in the light of the opposed testimony and of the record as a whole, leaves us in no doubt that there was no error in the findings, and that the judgment denying the petition must be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Friedman v. U. S., 8 Cir., 200 F.2d 690; U. S. v. Shneer, 3 Cir., 194 F.2d 598; Stidham v. U. S., 8 Cir., 170 F.2d 294. Cf. Williams v. U. S., 5 Cir., 192 F.2d 39