HARVEY LEE MCDONALD, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT-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 a guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional defects and that the claim of mental incompetence was waived by failure to raise it in prior motions.
Appellant was convicted upon a guilty plea for a Dyer Act violation and sentenced in 1966. He filed a fourth motion to vacate his judgment and sentenc…
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 Guilty Plea Waiver cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is taken from the district court’s denial of the appellant’s fourth motion to vacate his judgment and sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm.
The appellant has contended that (1) he was mentally incompetent when he signed an incriminating statement which he gave to an FBI agent; (2) the statement is insufficient to establish the elements of the offense; and (3) he was actually innocent.
McDonald was convicted upon his plea of guilty of a Dyer Act violation, 18 U. S.C. § 2312. He was sentenced on July 29, 1966; and there was no direct appeal. This Court recently affirmed a previous denial, after a full evidentiary hearing, of § 2255 relief to the appellant. McDonald v. United States, 5th Cir. 1970, 428 F. 2d 447. In those proceedings the appellant appeared and testified, but did not mention mental incompetence as grounds for relief.
By the order appealed from, the district court held that the judgment was validly based on appellant’s plea of guilty, which constituted a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects. The court held further that the appellant waived his claim of mental incompetence by his failure to present it in previous § 2255 motions. We agree with the district court on both points. See Henderson v. United States, 5th Cir. 1968, 395 F. 2d 209; Busby v. Holman, 5th Cir. 1966, 356 F. 2d 75; Juelich v. United States, 5th Cir. 1968, 403 F. 2d 523, cert. denied 394 U.S. 1002, 89 S.Ct. 1598, 22 L.Ed.2d 779. Upon McDonald’s previous appeal we affirmed the ruling that his guilty plea was freely and voluntarily entered by him. Under these circumstances the defense of innocence can not be raised in § 2255 proceedings. Frye v. United States, 5th Cir. 1969, 411 F. 2d 562; cf. North Carolina v. Alford, 1970, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162.
We find no error in the order appealed from, and accordingly it is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eaton v. United States, 458 F.2d 704 (7th Cir. 1972)
-
Grier v. United States, 472 F.2d 1157 (5th Cir. 1973)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970)
- Busby v. Holman, 356 F.2d 75 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Juelich v. United States, 403 F.2d 523 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Frye v. United States, 411 F.2d 562 (5th Cir. 1969)
- S. Pac. Co. v. Jordan, 395 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Henderson v. United States, 395 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Childs v. Ohio, 394 U.S. 1002 (U.S. 1969)
- Ralph v. Maryland, 394 U.S. 1002 (U.S. 1969)
- McDONALD v. United States, 428 F.2d 447 (5th Cir. 1970)