*1 65 appeal, or a in lieu of an Court Ohio alleged errors motion correct 2255 George FORRENS, Petitioner- in in court in trial a different another Appellant, the in federal district which another v. alleged not called to errors were UNITED STATES of unable attention. court’s Respondent-Appellee. Court to do Nor has the District this. No. 74-1089. U.S.C., jurisdiction, under 28 Section United States Court legality of a sentence to test the 2255, Ninth Circuit. judicial imposed by a court another 1,Oct. Gajewski Stevens, 346 district. See (C.A.8, is no There 1000 showing raised, appellant by a proceeding in the sentenc- 2255
Section
ing Georgia, raises court in the issues he showing, such and absent jurisdiction to consider is without purpose petition. very of Sec- “The
the
any required
tion
to hold
2255 is
sentencing
the
court.”
220,
Hayman,
S.Ct.
72
342 U.S.
(1951).
273,
There here no substantial
legation dispute new appellant eviden entitle to a full
tiary hearing, claims as with in the form of conclusions stated Hufstedler, Judge, allegations support dissented out of facts in opinion. and filed
thereof, being unsupported well as as proof proof; to such reference thus, legally is,
motion insufficient
sustain a See v. United review. Sons (W.D.Okla States, F.Supp. 295 642 .
.1969) Appellant that United States submits Tucker, 404 92 U.S. S.Ct. (1972), control- L.Ed.2d 592 is here
ling. sentencing judge Tucker, In the
explicitly stated that he had relied previous the defend- convictions of determining
ant sentence, and defendant had initiated Section
proceeding only after it had first been previous
determined that his convictions Obviously, unconstitutional. from
were stated,
what we have heretofore inapplicable.
Tucker case is here foregoing,
In accordance with the denying Judge Kinneary
order of dis-
motion to vacate the missing action, is affirmed. *2 Cal., Yes, Francisco, Sherwood, Defendant Forrens: Sir. San Leo N. petitioner-appellant. for The Court: What it? Atty., Kotoske, S. Asst. U. Thomas E. twenty- Defendant Forrens: It Cal., respondent-appel- Angeles, for Los years $10,000 or both. five lee. right. both, that’s The Court: Or any promise you been made to Has OPINION anyone at all? HUFSTEDLER, CARTER and Before No, Your Hon- Defendant Forrens: SCHNACKE,* Judges, Dis and Circuit or. Judge. trict Your are The [sic] Court: any promise pleading because of Judge: SCHNACKE, District anyone all? at to vacate his sentence seeks No, Hon- Your Defendant Forrens: alleging pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § charge or. plea guilty his of to a of that robbery involuntary be- bank was armed that a The You understand Court: English cause he did not understand the judge. binding on this is not language plea, at of and the time judge only that can The is the one 25-year given that he was you. though lawyer promised him a even I understand. Defendant Forrens: years if he sentence of seven" maximum only The one in the The Court: plea guilty. entered of that I can You understand world. reviewing The District after give you limit, the records and files in the case denied years fine ? and the evidentiary hear- without an Yes, Forrens: Sir. Defendant ing. anything hap- The Has Court: petitioner, discloses that prior today you pened to to to cause throughout represented who enter this other than the counsel, complained at no time you guilty? are understanding English lack No, Hon- Defendant Forrens: Your language, request nor he ever an did or. terpreter. you any The Court: If reason arraignment able, At his he in or- guilty plea this is not to government supplied der to be counsel at voluntarily freely understand- and and magistrate expense, he advise the your speak ing^ made, now is time to years old, an citi- was 35 American you out. Do understand ? living zen; married, that he was children; and minor his wife four Yes, Your Defendant Forrens: California, had been six he Honor. in-laws; except here had relatives you By your guilty plea The Court: unemployed janitor last he was an you saying now to this Court are ago; employed months six any pleading prom- are property, lived and had owned real any any mistreat- ises or threats address; ten at same nine or months but be- kind whatsoever ment of college. that he two had you you to admit that cause desire the time at At right? guilty, following guilty, entered Yes, Forrens: Defendant Sir. colloquy occurred: you think The Court: Can what You understand “The Court: accept why may I should you at all penalty reason is that the maximum plea? ? receive * Judge Schnacke, Northern District of for the District H. Robert Honorable California, sitting by designation. No, HUFSTEDLER, Judge (dis- Sir.” Defendant Forrens: senting) : clearly demon The record possibility minimal strates prove could that he lacked suffi- proceedings con understand did not English proficiency under- cient English patently frivolous. ducted *3 consequences the nature and stand that he entered Petitioner’s claim agree plea. ma- I with the But cannot expectancy promise aof conclusively jority shows completely lighter refut- is also petition He was frivolous. by the record. ed an eviden- been accorded should colloquy quoted above occurred hearing. tiary petitioner In some under oath. solemn affirmation cases promise leni- a induced conclusive, ency a thought might “he game, part of the all this was destroy the deal.” honest answers Tweedy, States United (9th Cir. nor, But such claim is made no UNITED STATES record, of the could it have in the face Appellee, plea in Petitioner entered his been. thereafter, Shortly February of 1971. McDONOUGH, Appellant. Patrick long let- and before wrote a No. Docket 74-1530. making judge, to the no mention ter asking only any promised leniency, but United States Court place be that his of confinement Second Circuit. California. Southern Argued Aug. It was until more than two Decided Oct. 1974. later, filed when this August 1973, mention was promise a lesser sen-
made beyond It is belief that one who
tence. year received stead of seven he had been long promised would wait so before com- petitioner
plaining. Where the
sworn, oath, under been deal has
made and that he has been induced promises plead guilty
to threats, subsequent be had in been must made supported stronger than contentions present offered in
those case. agree with the District Court
We in this conclu-
the records and files case
sively not enti- show that There- to the relief which seeks.
tled fore, required. supra. Tweedy, judgment affirmed.