Bistram v. United States
180 F. Supp. 501, 1960 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5314 (1960)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a sentencing court has the discretion to refuse to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief, even if it is based on new grounds, if those grounds could have been raised in a prior motion and the petitioner offers no justifiable reason for the failure to do so.
Facts:
- Carl Harvey Bistram was indicted for the crime of kidnaping and was convicted upon his plea of guilty in 1949.
- Nearly ten years after his conviction, Bistram claimed he was mentally incompetent at the time he entered his plea and was sentenced.
- Bistram alleged a history of hereditary insanity on his mother's side of the family, providing documents that his mother was diagnosed with dementia praecox and his uncle was committed for mental illness.
- He claimed to have suffered a brain concussion shortly before entering his guilty plea, providing a hospital record of a one-day admission for multiple lacerations and a concussion.
- Bistram asserted that he had been 'determined' to be mentally incompetent while confined in a Minnesota training school from 1937 to 1939, but he provided no official adjudication or supporting documentation for this claim.
- During a full plenary hearing on a prior motion in 1957, Bistram was asked by the court if he had any further matters to raise, and he confirmed that he had nothing further.
Procedural Posture:
- Carl Harvey Bistram was convicted on a guilty plea for kidnaping in a U.S. District Court.
- Bistram filed a first motion to vacate his sentence under § 2255, which the District Court denied.
- Bistram filed a second § 2255 motion alleging his plea was coerced, which the District Court also denied.
- On appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the denial of the first motion was affirmed, but the denial of the second motion was reversed and remanded for a hearing.
- Following a plenary hearing on remand, the District Court again denied the second motion.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's denial of the second motion.
- Bistram then filed a third motion to vacate his sentence under § 2255 in the same District Court, raising the new ground of mental incompetence, which is the subject of the present opinion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a district court required under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to entertain a successive motion to vacate a sentence that, while raising new factual grounds, seeks the same relief as a prior motion and presents claims that the petitioner could have been raised in an earlier proceeding?
Opinions:
Majority - Davies, District Judge
No. A district court is not required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief, as the statute grants the court discretion to deny such motions, particularly when the petitioner fails to raise known claims in a prior proceeding without a justifiable reason. The court reasoned that § 2255 explicitly gives the sentencing court discretion to refuse to entertain successive motions 'for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner.' While acknowledging a circuit split, the court adopted the majority view that this discretion applies even when new factual grounds are presented, if those grounds could have been raised earlier. Here, this was Bistram's third motion. The court emphasized that Bistram was given a full plenary hearing on a prior motion where he was explicitly asked if he had any further matters to raise and he declined. His failure to present the known issue of his mental competency at that time, without any valid reason, raises a 'conclusive inference of their invalidity.' Furthermore, the court found Bistram's allegations of mental incompetence to be mere unsupported conclusions, lacking factual evidence of any actual adjudication of insanity, which distinguishes his case from precedents where relief was granted.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle of finality in criminal judgments and addresses the judicial concern over the abuse of post-conviction relief petitions. By interpreting 'similar relief' in § 2255 broadly, the court establishes that petitioners cannot strategically file a series of motions raising different issues one by one. The ruling places a burden on petitioners to bring all known claims in their first motion or risk being barred from raising them later, effectively discouraging piecemeal litigation. This case solidifies the district court's role as a gatekeeper against frivolous or delayed claims and underscores that a prior full hearing can create a strong inference against the validity of newly-raised, previously-available claims.
