United States v. Duffy
454 F.2d 809 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An appellate court will affirm a district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition to vacate a conviction when the district court's factual findings are not clearly erroneous and its legal conclusions are consistent with controlling precedent.
Facts:
- In or before 1967, Burns was involved in events that led to a federal charge.
- The charge against Burns was for violating the Dyer Act, which prohibits the interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle.
Procedural Posture:
- Burns was convicted in a federal district court for violating the Dyer Act in 1967.
- Burns appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the conviction.
- Burns later filed a petition in federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, seeking to set aside his conviction based on twelve alleged grounds for relief.
- The district court judge held an evidentiary hearing, where testimony was taken from Burns, his original trial counsel, and the chief deputy clerk.
- After the hearing, the district court made detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered an order denying Burns' petition.
- Burns (appellant) appealed the district court's denial of his § 2255 petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court err in denying the petitioner's § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction where the petitioner's factual claims were refuted by the record and his legal claims were precluded by existing precedent?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, the district court did not err in denying the petition. The denial of a § 2255 petition is properly affirmed where the petitioner's claims are either factually unsupported or legally meritless. The court reviewed all twelve of Burns' grounds for relief. It found that the factual claims were directly refuted by the trial court's findings, which were deemed 'clearly right' and not clearly erroneous. The remaining claims presented legal questions that were already foreclosed by established decisions of the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court. Therefore, the court found no reason to engage in a detailed discussion of the claims and affirmed the lower court's judgment.
Analysis:
This case exemplifies the high standard of review for collateral attacks on criminal convictions under § 2255. It underscores the significant deference appellate courts grant to a district court's factual findings made after an evidentiary hearing, reviewing them only for clear error. The opinion demonstrates that claims legally foreclosed by existing precedent will be summarily dismissed, reinforcing the principle of stare decisis. It serves as a practical illustration of how courts efficiently dispose of post-conviction relief petitions that lack either a factual basis or a viable legal argument.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Duffy