Opinion ID: 246620
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Procedural Difficulties.

Text: 15 Consideration of the merits of appellant's challenge to the jurisdiction of the federal courts is complicated by the somewhat tortuous procedural route by which the case has arrived at this court. The procedural difficulties which might bar a determination on the merits are as follows: (A) Appellant pleaded guilty at trial. Appellee urges that by this guilty plea he waived all objections to jurisdiction and to jurisdictional flaws in the indictment. (B) The primary point now urged on appeal was not raised below. 16 A. Did Appellant's Guilty Plea Foreclose A Subsequent § 2255 Motion Challenging The Failure Of The Indictment To Allege Jurisdictional Facts? 17 It should be noted preliminarily that lack of jurisdiction in the sentencing court is one of the express statutory grounds for a § 2255 motion to vacate, 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Thus it cannot be seriously argued, although appellee purports to do so, that if appellant had pleaded not guilty he would hereafter be unable to raise the jurisdictional issue on such a motion. The gist of appellee's argument is that by his plea of guilty appellant prevented introduction of evidence which might have cured the defective indictment. 18 Judge Murrah of the Tenth Circuit stated the applicable rule in Marteney v. United States, 1954, 216 F.2d 760, 762: If    it affirmatively appears on the face of the indictment or information that no federal offense was committed, the charge is vulnerable to collateral attack by a motion under Section 2255   . And this is so even in the face of a guilty plea, for one cannot plead guilty to an offense which is not affirmatively stated in the charge. See also Berg v. United States, 9 Cir., 1949, 176 F.2d 122. The rule seems clearly established. 19 That the federal courts have no jurisdiction over a crime committed on a Washington Indian Reservation unless it involves an Indian has been discussed above. The indictment did not allege that appellant or the victim of the accused was an Indian. It thus failed to state that any basis for federal jurisdiction existed in this case, and is properly attacked by a motion to vacate sentence under § 2255. 20 B. Does Appellant's Failure To Raise The Point Below Preclude This Court From Considering It? 21 Reviewing on appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion, the Eighth Circuit held that an alleged defect in an indictment, although this question was never presented to the court below,    relates to the jurisdiction of that court [below] and is a question which this Court properly may consider. Martyn v. United States, 8 Cir., 1949, 176 F.2d 609, 610. This seems a sound ruling. Whether the indictment states a federal offense is a question of law which this court can adequately decide from the face of the indictment. While this precise ground for attacking the jurisdiction of the lower court has not been urged before, the present motion was based on lack of jurisdiction appearing on the face of the indictment. The attention of the lower court was therefore directed to the indictment. Thus the ground for reversal urged now is at least of the same general nature as that urged below. At any rate, the defect appears so clearly on the face of the indictment that it seems only just for this Court to consider it. 22 The judgment against Hilderbrand is ordered set aside and his indictment by the United States District Court is ordered dismissed.