Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/469/66/79711/
Timestamp: 2020-01-23 04:18:49
Document Index: 641148473

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2253', '§ 5851', '§ 2255', '§ 455', '§ 455', '§ 2255']

Robert E. Gravenmier, Petitioner and Appellant, v. United States of America, Respondent and Appellee, 469 F.2d 66 (9th Cir. 1972) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Ninth Circuit › 1972 › Robert E. Gravenmier, Petitioner and Appellant, v. United States of America, Respondent and Appellee
Robert E. Gravenmier, Petitioner and Appellant, v. United States of America, Respondent and Appellee, 469 F.2d 66 (9th Cir. 1972)
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 469 F.2d 66 (9th Cir. 1972) Aug. 23, 1972
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Jurisdiction here is based on 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
On September 8, 1966, petitioner Robert E. Gravenmier was convicted of possession of a sawed off shotgun in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5851, Sec. 5854, and Sec. 5821. This was case No. 1. Judge Manuel L. Real, then United States Attorney Real at Los Angeles, was recorded as "of counsel," with actual appearances made by an assistant United States attorney. On direct appeal, the conviction was affirmed (Gravenmier v. United States, 380 F.2d 30, 9th Cir., 1967). During the hiatus between conviction and affirmation two events occurred. On November 14, 1966, United States Attorney Real was appointed to the federal district bench. On February 20, 1967, while free on bail pending the outcome of the appeal in the firearm conviction, Gravenmier was again indicted in the district court. This was case No. 2. He was charged in two counts with two separate armed bank robberies. Judge Real presided over the ensuing trial, which resulted in conviction on count two of case No. 2. The bank robbery sentence in case No. 2 was set at twenty years, to run concurrently with the four-year sentence for the firearm conviction in case No. 1.
Petitioner subsequently brought this motion to vacate the bank robbery sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, contending that Judge Real should have disqualified himself from the bank robbery trial in accordance with the mandate of 28 U.S.C. § 455. We call this case No. 3. In this appeal from Judge Real's order denying that motion, petitioner also contends that it was improper for Judge Real to entertain the Sec. 2255 motion because it was his impartiality that was under scrutiny in that motion.
I. As we have said, appellant contends that 28 U.S.C. § 455 required that Judge Real disqualify himself from presiding over the bank robbery trial, case No. 2. The code section reads as follows:
It is well established in this circuit that the trial judge can hear and decide motions made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Dukes v. United States, 407 F.2d 863 (9th Cir., 1969), rehearing denied April 9, 1969, cert. denied 396 U.S. 897, 90 S. Ct. 193, 24 L. Ed. 2d 174; Odom v. United States, 455 F.2d 159 (9th Cir., 1972). The same rule applies even when the Sec. 2255 motion is based on a claim that the trial judge should have disqualified himself from presiding over the trial. Judge Real was not infected or infested for life because he was of counsel in case No. 1.