ANGEL LUIS CRUZ, 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 the petitioner was not entitled to relief on the merits, despite a potential jurisdictional question regarding his custody status.
Angel Cruz, having served his sentence and been released, sought a new trial under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 due to concerns about future employment. He claime…
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 Knowing And Intelligent Waiver Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Having served his sentence and been released, Angel Cruz, nevertheless, seeks a new trial pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 because of his apprehension that unless his conviction and sentence are vacated he will not be able to resume employment as a merchant seaman.1 At the time he filed his petition, he was in custody. Query: Being now free, is he under a sufficient detriment to be entitled to the statutory relief authorized by 28 U.S.C. Section 2255? See Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 83 S.Ct. 373, 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963); Parker v. Ellis, 362 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 909, 4 L.Ed.2d 963 (1960); United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954).
It is unnecessary to decide this proce-dural and jurisdictional question2 for, on the merits, he is plainly entitled to no relief.
The record supports the district judge’s conclusion that Cruz had, at time of trial, a rational understanding and a factual grasp of the proceedings against him. See Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960). We think, with the district court, that the petitioner intelligently waived his right to counsel when arraigned and had the requisite mental capacity to do so and to plead guilty. There was ample compliance with Rule 11. Petitioner’s contentions to the contrary were carefully and patiently considered at a plenary hearing wherein all the facts were fully developed. See Cruz v. United States, 247 F.Supp. 835 (D.S.C. 1965). Petitioner’s absence at the hearing was with the consent of his counsel. Section 2255 specifically provides that a “court may entertain and determine such motion without requiring the production of the prisoner at the hearing.”
The findings contained in the memorandum of decision of the district court are supported by the record, and none of them are clearly erroneous. See Rakes v. United States, 352 F. 2d 518 (4th Cir. 1965). The petitioner has not sustained his “burden of showing that he did not understand his constitutional rights.” Starks v. United States, 264 F. 2d 797, 799 (4th Cir. 1959).
Affirmed.
. It is represented to us by counsel that the United States Coast Guard will not consider reissuing seaman’s papers to Cruz until three years after the date of his plea of guilty on September 15, 1964.
. Theoreticians may insist we have decided jurisdiction willy-nilly. See Parker v. Ellis, 362 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 909, 4 L.Ed.2d 963 (1960).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1960)
- United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1954)
- Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (U.S. 1963)
- Parker v. Ellis, 362 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1960)
- Starks v. United States, 264 F.2d 797 (4th Cir. 1959)
- Rakes v. United States, 352 F.2d 518 (4th Cir. 1965)