Court Opinion

ID: 9447511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:36:49.367589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:04.618227
License: Public Domain

VOGEL, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
While I agree with the language of the majority opinion .relating to the severity of the sentences imposed upon the defendants, I cannot concur in its conclusion that the defendants are entitled to a hearing to determine whether their pleas of guilty were coerced.
The motions presently before this court on appeal raise solely the issue of whether or not the multiple counts of the indictment constituted but a single offense. On the resolution of this issue I am in complete agreement with the majority. The only claim of coercion in the entire record is that made by the defendant Kessel alone in a previous motion brought under § 2255, 28 U.S.C.A., which motion was denied by the District Court without a hearing and from which denial no appeal was taken. Bryant (Kessel) et al. v. United States, D.C.N.D.1959, 173 F.Supp. 574, 581. If Kessel could possibly be deemed to make a similar contention in the instant petition, such assertion falls within the “second or successive motion” limitation of § 2255. As to the defendants Bryant and Heideman, granting them a hearing on whether or not their pleas were voluntary violates the rule that no contention may be the basis for a motion to vacate which has not first been filed in and presented to the trial court. See, e. g., Johnston v. United States, 8 Cir., 1958, 254 F.2d 239, 241. I accordingly believe that the District Court should be sustained.