UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
CARL D. WHEELER, APPELLANT
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 appellate court held that the admission of a co-defendant's extra-judicial confession, though a violation of the Bruton rule, constituted harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
Petitioner was convicted of unlawful entry into a bank. At trial, FBI agents testified to a co-defendant's confession that implicated the petitioner. …
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 Retroactivity Of Supreme Court Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, Carl D. Wheeler, was convicted of unlawful entry into a bank insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. We affirmed his conviction in Golliher v. United States, 362 F. 2d 594 (8th Cir. 1966). Wheeler then sought post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court, Judge Van Pelt, denied Wheeler’s motion to vacate his conviction and ten-year sentence. In this appeal, Wheeler argues that his conviction cannot stand because at the trial the government introduced an extra-judicial confession of his co-defendant Holmes contrary to the rule of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968).1
We affirm.
At Wheeler’s trial, two FBI agents recounted a conversation they had with one of Wheeler’s co-defendants, Holmes. The testimony pertaining to this conversation served to implicate Wheeler in the crime by name. Holmes did not testify.
In denying relief under § 2255, Judge Van Pelt noted that he had presided at Wheeler’s first trial, which was declared a mistrial because of prejudicial publicity, and at his second trial, in which the guilty verdict was returned. Judge Van Pelt again reviewed the evidence and concluded:
[T]he admission of the confession did constitute a violation of Wheeler’s sixth amendment right of confrontation under the Bruton rule, but -» * * the case against Wheeler was so overwhelming that this violation of Bruton was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
We have reviewed the evidence presented at Wheeler’s trial. Our review convinces us that the Bruton error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969). Accordingly, we affirm for reasons enunciated by Judge Van Pelt in his unreported opinion.
Affirmed.
. The Bruton rule applies retroactively. Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293, 88 S.Ct. 1921, 20 L.Ed.2d 1100 (1968).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968)
- Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 (U.S. 1969)
- Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1968)
- Golliher v. United States, 362 F.2d 594 (8th Cir. 1966)