Court Opinion

ID: 9451425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:17:15.262328+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:44.236465
License: Public Domain

EDWARDS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
In Schiebelhut v. United States, 318 F.2d 785 (C.A. 6,1963), this court (while denying relief in that proceeding on grounds which are not involved here) said:
“[T]he appellant should be permitted to file a new motion on his own behalf pursuant to Section 2255, Title 28, U.S.C., to be considered in the light of the ‘guidelines’ of Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068 [10 L.Ed.2d 148].” Schiebelhut v. United States, supra at 786.
Petitioner now appeals from denial of a new petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The denial was entered without hearing.
I agree with Judge O’Sullivan that the record, plus the affidavits filed before the District Judge, make plaintiff’s allegations of coercion and inducement of his nolo contendere plea seem highly improbable. I do not, however, see how the specific allegations made by petitioner can be regarded as traversed without consideration of the affidavits. As this court noted in Scott v. United States, 349 F.2d 641 (C.A. 6, 1965), the allegations of a § 2255 petition may not be dismissed by consideration of affidavits without a hearing in court with the right of cross-examination.
I would reverse for hearing.