Daniel Lee Sappington v. United States
523 F.2d 858
8th Cir.
1975
Check Treatment

*2 THE COURT: Lеt’s take them one at Daniel Lee Sappington, pro se. a time. Let’s take 69 Cr Stohr, Donald J. Atty. U. S. Frank is a charge entering the Farm Bussmann, A. Asst. Atty., U. S. St. and Hоme Savings and Loan Associ- Louis, Mo., respondent. ation larceny. with intent to commit LAY, Before STEPHENSON and MR. [Sappington’s GILSTER attor- Judges. ney]: All right, sir. THE understand, COURT: Do I Mr. PER CURIAM. Sappington, you want to enter a Petitioner Daniel Lee Sappington ap- to the charge? peals from the denial the United Yes, DEFENDANT SAPPINGTON: States District Court for the Eastern sir. District of Missouri of his motion to va- We turn allegation cate his sentence to the under 28 U.S.C. that the tri- al May рetitioner pleaded On entering federally with II.1 insured Fed.R.Crim.P. The savings transcript of the proceedings and loan with the in- association shows (cid:127) larceny, in specifically tent to Nation commit of 18 informed 2113(a). that he could He sentenced to “be sentenced [to] years imрrison- up twenty years consecutive terms a fine of five of five charge ment on an unrelated fifteen thousand dollars.” Petitioner stated that years on charge consequences. here involved. No understood these appeal was taken judgment judge questioned from the Sappington as to later, conviction. Nearly on whether any promises threats had or April 1970, he in a been plea. was cоnvicted made He re- to induce his provides part that a in relevant consequences plea” of the and that “[t]he accеpt guilty plea shall not “without first judgment court shall not enter a addressing the defendant and deter- unless it is satisfied that there is a voluntarily mining plea.” fаctual basis for the Fed.R.Crim.P. 11. charge of the nature of the peace of both dignity had threats plied promises no punished by each.” Unitеd was volun- been made and that his Lanza, explained the States judge then tary. The trial indi- ac- L.Ed. nature cord, the court’s Abbate v. understanding of his сated *3 187, 666, (1959). for 79 3 L.Ed.2d 729 A S.Ct. explanation. factual a fed- petitioner prosecution A state which follows then elicited: charge was of his erаl for the is same offense briefly related the circumstances jeopardy violative of refer- not the double activity, making specific criminal Illinois, v. clause. Bartkus his codefend- explanation of ence 128-129, 79 684 S.Ct. 3 L.Ed.2d presence, had who, Sappington’s in ant (1959). illegal entry thаt the was admitted mony taking the intention to “with the Petitioner’s claim that he was de that was there.” [sic] equal protection nied becausе the Justice self-imposed pol violated its 11 Rule have We noted icy against duplicative pros federal-state court follow rеquire “that does ecutions is frivolous. Petitioner was ritual, that, to con in order an exact nearly convicted in state court the ‘nature vey after his conviction in federal court. defendant, it is neces charge’ to Thus the federal authorities were in no of the of exрlain the sary to ‘elements’ position policy to invoke of avoid their States, Sappington v. United fense.” ing duplication. When was 1972), cert. 1380 prosecuted and in convicted state 2164, 36 93 S.Ct. U.S. the state authorities not bound were scope of (1973). proper L.Ed.2d 693 Department. of thе Justice “will the examination of the defendant Petitioner’s ‍‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‍claims merit are without complexity depend upon in each case аnd his dis- properly 2255 motion was of the sur all as as well ” judg- by the missed district court. The at . Id. . . rounding circumstances the district ment of is affirmed. demon- casе The record in this compliance strates substantial (concur- Judge rule. ring). de that he Petitioner claims I concur in all that said in has been because his constitutional nied majority opinion, were this a state both federal prosecuted appeal, join direct criminal I would Al offense. for the same authorities view, however, reservation. In it my out are arguments Sappington’s though unnecessary is to considеr this court confus inartfully somewhat drafted and on a 28 whether 2255 motion broadly because construe ing, we them there has been full with Rule compliance two discern proceeding pro We he is se. 11 of the Federal Pro- Rules of Criminal first, prosecu two contentions: cedurе. availa- relief is not “[C]ollateral protection tions were violative ble when all that is is a failure shown second, jeopardy; аgainst double requirements” with the formal authorities Hill v. a rule of criminal procedure. violating protection of the law equal States, Unitеd 82 S.Ct. U.S. duplica self-imposed policy their (1962). point- 7 L.Ed.2d 417 As Both prosecutions.2 tive federal-state States, in Davis v. ed out merit. are without U.S. 94 S.Ct. (1974), the test jеopardy As to the double claim, is “whether the of law was claimed error it is well established that “an act inherently ‘a fundamental defeсt which denounced as a crime both national jus- complete miscarriage results sovereignties an offense is (1960). See Petite v. U.S. Statеs,

§61 tice,’ whether ‘[i]t

present[s] exceptional circumstances al., Robert et HENNINGS remedy afforded where the need for the Plaintiffs-Appellants, appar- corpus habeas by the writ of ” (Quoting from Hill v. ent.’ 428, 82 supra, 368 471.) Houser United capacity Harry GRAFTON, ‍‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‍in 1974). Apply- 512-13 al., County Clerk, et test, a ing that Defendants-Aрpellees. for- adequate develop for ac- mal record of factual basis of itself cepting does not United States Court support pursuant a collateral Seventh Circuit. *4 Arias v. 28 U.S.C. 2255. See Argued June 1973), cert. Decided (1974); Limon-Gonzalez Nov. Rehearing En Banc Denied (5th Cir. 499 F.2d 936 1974). rights mаny There are constitutional voluntary ‍‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‍may waived and be Boy guilty. Alabama,

kin v. Frontero, States 1971). Recently enacted (Public Law 94-

amendments to 371), effective December Stat. litany incorporate ‍‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‍an extensive to explained which must be the of a

defendant the court аt the time I guilty or nolo contendere.1 opinion imply,

would not want this to silentio, noncompliance

sub

any the provisions of such can be ‍‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‍made of a collateral the knowingly

if volun- it was otherwise

tarily entered. 11(c), amended, 1. Rule already made, reads: right been he has jury (c) to be tried accept- has the Advice to Defendant. —Befоre right counsel, to right assistance of contendere, or nolo to confront and cross-examine court must witnesses address the defendant him, against right open and the of, not to be com- inform him deter- pelled himself; to understands, incriminate following: mine that he (4) pleads guilty that if (1) he or nolo the nature of conten- to which offered, dere there will kind, mandatory any not be a further minimum tri^l by pleading so that penalty prоvided by law, any, or nolo con- if and the trial; right tendere he possible by law; waives penalty provided to a maximum (5) pleads that if he nolо conten- dere, (2) may questions represented by if ask him defendant is not about attorney, pleaded, offense rep- to which right he has аnd if has the questions oath, he answers attorney every these stage resented on record, counsel, presence proceeding against and, and in necessary, him if him; his answers appointed represent later be used one will be perjury right or false state- that he has ment. persist or to in that if it has