*2
GARDNER,
Before
WOODROUGH
Judges.
VOGEL, Circuit
Judge.
accept
recommend-
WOODROUGH,
Circuit
ation.
When the defendants
appellants
16, 1958
On December
purpose
into court for the
Stanley
Heide-
W.
and Vance
V. Kessel
changing
it is claimed
twenty
im-
man
sentenced to
*3
prоsecuting
to
attorney
the
confirmed
appel-
prisonment
time
the same
and at
to
them his
made
offer and statements
Bryant
George Harding
was
lant
attorney.
added:
their
Also that
years
twenty-five
their
tenced to
of
lot
yourselves
“You
will bе
against
pleas
guilty
indictment
of
an
to
change your
you
trouble and us too if
do
trans-
them in
for interstate
six counts
plea.”
portation
and fraudu-
with unlawful
money
forged
orders
lent intent of six
Although
recognized the
in
in one
denomination
hundred dollar
they
petitions as
under
motions
§
money
violation
2314. The
of 18 U.S.C. §
hearing on the
were denied without a
negotiated.
orders were never
ground
showing in the
of conclusive
motions, files,
records,
the
each sen-
that
Kessel and Heideman were
and
рrisoners
relief.
tenced
of five counts
were
to no
to
each
entitled
four
Bryant
consecutively
appeal
five Their
that
to
years
and
is
run
to
on this
pleas
guilty
run their
of
from
five counts to
obtained
the
were
each of
voluntary
addition,
unfairly
consecutively.
all were
them
In
were not
and
put on and should be
and
on the
count
vacated.
sentenced
sixth
probation
the conclu-
to commence after
steps
The record before us includes the
They
fifth
sion of
the
count.
service on
by which the defendants were arrested
serving
sentences.
the
brought
by
police
state
in
and
Minnesota
sentencing
They applied
to the
subjected
North
Dakota and
to series
by petitions
treat-
vacate the sentences
agents
questionings by
of
Federal
under 28
ed as
to vacate
U.S.C.
motions
Investigation
Bureau of
and
before
both
among
alleging
in
other
substance
§
appear
after indictment but it does not
things
guilty
not
that their
of
interrogatеd any
that the District Court
voluntarily
them but were
entered
change
of them as
reason for their
brought
part
wrongfully
in
about
inquiry
plea or made
of them as to
of
menacing
presence
expressions in their
voluntary
it was
and
from
free
attornеy in
district
assistant
the
or
con-
coercion
induced
assurance
part by deceptive
and in
their
of
ease
cerning
penalty.
the
by him,
out to
in
held
inducement
pleaded
had
defendants
After
that:
It
be that
the crime of
forged
and had bеen
into court
transporting
or
false
securities
giving their
purpose of
consent
for the
unlawful and fraudulent
intent
Fargo the assistant
tried at
attor-
to be
ney
state lines will
across
be committed
regard
to them in their
justify
declared
under such circumstances as to
“there would be no
penalty
deals”
that
of
extreme
the
the
statute but
asking
intended
suggest
that
for
and
“he
here does not
record
such a
prescribed
law.” That
maximum
securities
six so-
situation.
each of the
calling
Money
maximum
“Universal
Orders”
called
imprisonment
sixty years
sixty
only
each,
a hundred dollars
and all
for
fine.
dollars
thousand
were carried across the
of them
line in
probably,
The act was
transaction.
one
a conference was
That thereafter
held
petty
than
misdemeanor
more
but it
prosecutor and
defendants’
between
murder,
a heinous
crime like
attorney reported to defendants in which
arson,
fairly
rape,
thought
nor could it
prosecutor indicated his view that а
penal
to merit the same kind of
surely
find them
jury would
but he
ty.
change
defendants would
said
according
Yet,
plea
he would
of
recommend
attorney
year
motions,
prosecuting
term for each
a five
de-
defendant and
treating
gravity
the еffect
his intention
dared
plea
guilty requires
meriting
extreme
commensurate
offense as one
thoroughness
only applied
inspection
penalty
law that
entering
crimes,
surrounding
circumstances
atrocious
modern
e.,
to most
times
motivating
sixty
factors
years, split
i.
into consecutive
inquiry
have
imprisonment
for it.
terms, amounting
Such an
does not
life
object
making
accord-
its
the ascertainment
recommendation
his
guilt
allegations, petitioner’s
innocence,
acсording
ingly.
Also,
scope
limited in its
voluntariness
his recommendations
he declared that
plea.
prevail.
Friedman United
Cir., 1952,
VOGEL, Circuit language agree IWhile .relating se- majority opinion
the verity imposed the sentences in its con-
defendants, I concur cannot entitled that the
clusion to determine ato were coerced. *6 presently this before The motions solely issue appeal raise multiple counts not the whether or single constituted indictment issue this resolution of theOn offense. agreement complete I аm in only of coercion majority. claim by the made is that record the entire previous mo ain alone Kessel defendant U.S.C.A., under § tion by the District denied motion was
which from which without Bryant appeal was taken. no denial States, D.C.N. al. v. F.Supp. et (Kessel) If Kessel 581. D.1959, 173 sim to make a deemed possibly be could petition, instant ilar “second within the falls assertion limitation of § motion” or successive Bryant and toAs granting
Heideman, pleas were volun not their rule that no contention tary violates motion to for a vacate basis pre first been filed which See, g., e. trial court. sented Johnston accordingly 239, 241. I believe F.2d Court should be sus District
tained.