Thе appellant Rogers is confined in the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, where he is serving two 5-year sentences for the transportation of automobiles in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312. In proceеdings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, he challenged the validity of the sentences upon the grounds of inadequacy of his counsel and that he was sеntenced by a Judge other than the one who accepted his plea of guilty. The trial court denied the motion withоut a hearing.
On September 8, 1964, Rogers appeared before the Honorable Allen E. Barrow, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma, with counsel of his own choiсe, at which time, after having been fully advised of his rights and the cоnsequences of a conviction, he withdrew his former plеa of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty to both counts of the indictment. Thereafter, on September 16, 1964, Rogers again appeared in the aforesaid court, the Hоnorable Luther Bohanon presiding, at which time, without objection of Rogers or his counsel, Rogers was sentenced tо imprisonment for a period of five years on eaсh count with the provision that the sentences should be served concurrently.
While it is the better practice for the Judge who accepts the plea of guilty to impose thе sentence, if such sentence is pronounced by anоther Judge with concurrent jurisdiction, the judgment and sentence is not void and will not be set aside in collateral procеedings. Calvaresi v. United States, 10 Cir.,
Giving Rogers’ motion the benefit of the most liberal construction, he questions the adequacy оf his counsel upon the grounds that no appeal was taken from the sentences after a request to do so hаd been made, and that counsel should have known that Rogers had an alibi defense that could have been provеd on trial, and that a plea of guilty should not have been permitted by counsel. In other words, Rogers says that even though he pleaded guilty, he could have proved that he was in jаil at the time of the alleged oifenses.
There is nothing in the record which indicates that counsel for Rogers were not capable, practicing attorneys,
1
or that their representation was inadequate. Rogers was not a stranger in the courts. Since 1945 he has been charged and cоnvicted of numerous crimes, including felonies. The record is clear that the plea of guilty was voluntarily made, with full knowledge of its consequences. A plea of guilty admits all materiаl facts pleaded in the indictment, and constitutes a confession of guilt. These facts may not thereafter be controverted in collateral proceedings. Godish v. United Stаtes, 10 Cir.,
The court did not err in denying the motion without a hearing.
Affirmed.
Notes
. Throughоut the proceedings Rogers was represented by two lawyers of his own choice, and both were present when sentence was pronounced. Rogers was then asked if be was “satisfied with the representation in this matter”, and his reply was “Yes, Sir.”