JOHN RAYMOND MALONE, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that issues previously decided on direct appeal are not subject to review in a Section 2255 proceeding, absent extreme circumstances.
Appellant, previously convicted of bank robbery and affirmed on appeal, moved to vacate the judgment. He alleged federal agent participation in witnes…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Vacate cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was tried by jury on an indictment alleging bank robbery in violation of Section 2113(a) (d), Title 18 U. S. Code, found guilty and sentenced to a term of 20 years. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed by this Court. Malone v. United States, 6 Cir., 238 F. 2d 851.
Thereafter, he moved in the District Court under the provisions of Section 2255, Title 28 U. S. Code, that the judgment be vacated. He contends that the judgment is void because federal agents participated with state police “in forcing and framing a preliminary identification by witnesses” and because he was not adequately represented by counsel. The District Judge denied the motion.
In affirming the judgment on the prior appeal we stated that appellant was represented by counsel of his own choice, the identification was by eyewitnesses, was direct and positive, and the trial was fair. The issues disposed of in that appeal will not be again reviewed in this proceeding.
Alleged inadmissibility of evidence and alleged incompetency of counsel of one’s own choosing are not questions subject to review through proceedings under Section 2255, Title 28 U. S. Code, except possibly in extreme cases, of which this is not one. Ford v. United States, 6 Cir., 234 F. 2d 835; Anderson v. Bannan, 6 Cir., 250 F. 2d 654.
It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. United States, 265 F.2d 14 (5th Cir. 1959)
-
Franano v. United States, 303 F.2d 470 (8th Cir. 1962)
-
Malone v. United States, 299 F.2d 254 (6th Cir. 1962)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Malone v. United States, 238 F.2d 851 (6th Cir. 1956)
- Anderson v. Bannan, 250 F.2d 654 (6th Cir. 1958)
- Ford v. United States, 234 F.2d 835 (6th Cir. 1956)