KENNETH BRIAN ROBERTS, 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 the district court correctly denied the motion to vacate conviction and sentence because the incriminating statement was made voluntarily and without the need for Miranda warnings.
Appellant was convicted of counterfeiting violations and later moved to vacate his sentence, claiming an incriminating statement was obtained without …
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 Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Brian Roberts has appealed from the District Court’s denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his motion to vacate conviction and sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm.
The appellant was convicted after a trial by jury on two counts charging counterfeiting violations.1 He did not take a direct appeal. Appellant contends that the prosecution introduced an incriminating statement made by him while he was in custody and without his having been given adequate Miranda warnings. He also contends that perjured testimony was used in connection with the incriminating statement.
The incriminating statement in question was made by Roberts in the course of a conversation with a police officer at a coffee stand in the corridor of the Criminal Courts Building in New Orleans, Louisiana. The conversation took place in the presence of Roberts’ attorney, who urged Roberts, without success, not to talk with the officer. The officer was an acquaintance of Roberts and was not engaged in an investigation of Roberts or of the offense with which he was subsequently convicted.
The District Court found that Roberts was not in custody at the time, that his counsel was present, and therefore, no Miranda warning was required. This finding was supported by the record.
The perjury charge revolves around the police officer’s identification of the date of the conversation. The District Court found that the police officer was mistaken about the date and this finding is supported by the evidence.
Affirmed.
. 18 U.S.C. §§ 472, 477.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)