William Frederick Semet v. United States, 369 F.2d 90, 10th Cir. (1966)

369 F.
2d 90
William Frederick SEMET, Appellant,

v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 8791.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

November 29, 1966.
1
Thomas J. Nance, Denver, Colo., for appellant.
Cecil E. Robertson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Muskogee, Okl. (Bruce Green, U. S.

Atty., Eddie Harper, Asst. U. S. Atty., Muskogee, Okl., were on the brief), for
appellee.
Before PHILLIPS and HICKEY, Circuit Judges, and DOYLE, District Judge.
WILLIAM E. DOYLE, District Judge.
This is an appeal by a confined federal prisoner seeking reversal of an order of

the District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, the sentencing court.
The order in question denied without evidentiary hearing a petition which had
been filed pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 2255.
Petitioner-appellant is now serving a mandatory sentence of twenty-five years

following his plea of guilty to an indictment which charged violation of Title 18
U.S.C. 2214, robbery of a post office by putting a life in jeopardy.
The claim asserted in the original petition is that petitioner-appellant's plea of

guilty was entered involuntarily; that it was the result of a chain of coercive
circumstances which add up to a violation of petitioner-appellant's
constitutional rights. Corollary contentions advanced were: 1) Denial of
effective assistance of counsel; 2) Inadequate admonition as to the
consequences of his plea; and 3) Deception by his counsel growing out of an
alleged misrepresentation that his sentence would be reduced. Petitionerappellant also alleged that his rights were violated prior to the entry of his plea
of guilty. He maintains that his confession was obtained through the use of
threats and fear; that he was unlawfully forced into a police line-up, and that his
pre-arraignment detention was invalid.
8
The dispositive question is whether the trial court erred in denying the petition
without an evidentiary hearing and without assigning counsel. The answer to
this depends on whether the record discloses the existence of issues of fact.
The transcript of proceedings on the occasion of the entry of the plea of guilty
discloses the trial judge's extended efforts to communicate to the petitionerappellant the consequences of his plea of guilty. The contents of the indictment,
the right to a jury trial and the twenty-five years' maximum sentence were fully
and clearly explained by him. Petitioner-appellant unequivocally stated that he
wished to change his plea to guilty.
10
The petition was filed by reason of the fact that petitioner-appellant originally
entered a plea of not guilty. There were conferences between his counsel and
the United States Attorney looking to reduction of the charge. This would have
required the filing of an information to take the place of the indictment which
had been returned. The effort was to persuade the United States Attorney to
bring the case under a statute which would allow the imposition of a sentence
not to exceed ten years. But following these discussions the District Attorney
refused to take the proposed action and after that petitioner-appellant requested
that he be allowed to change his plea of guilty. In fact, he wrote a letter to the
judge requesting this. On the occasion of change of plea petitioner-appellant
was asked to tell the Court what his wishes were. On that occasion he said:
11
"Mr. Semet: Well the only reason I entered a plea of not guilty in the first place
was the hope I might get the charge lowered; all the evidence is against me,
they have everything, I have been indicted, and I know there is no hope of
getting the charge lowered."
12
The specific question whether any one had given any promises "with reference
to your changing your plea," was answered in the negative.
13
The Court also questioned petitioner-appellant at length concerning the

discussions between counsel with respect to possible reduction of the charge
and satisfied himself that petitioner-appellant understood what had occurred.1
Petitioner-appellant stated that no promises were made and that he did not
consider the discussions between counsel as any kind of promise.
14
No basis is apparent for the contention of petitioner-appellant that he was
induced to enter the plea of guilty by a promise that a lesser sentence would be
pronounced or that there would be a reduction of sentence. The presence of the
mandatory twenty-five year sentence was brought home to him repeatedly in
clear and simple language. Under these circumstances it can not be said that
there is or can be any issue of fact.
15
We are mindful that a plea of guilty induced by threats or promises is not a

voluntary act. This involuntariness renders a judgment and sentence based upon
such a plea void. Furthermore, an evidentiary hearing must be held where the
petition alleges facts which, if proven, would establish involuntariness. Such a
hearing must be held even though the factual allegations seem to be
exaggerated, or on their face untrue.2 But a hearing is not required where the
motion, the records and the files conclusively show that petitioner-appellant is
not entitled to relief and no factual issues are raised.3
16
In the case at bar the trial judge was painstaking and thorough in satisfying
himself that the accused before him understood the nature of the proceeding
and that his act of changing his plea was voluntary. Under these circumstances
it was unnecessary to hold a factual hearing in connection with the present
petition.
17
The other contentions of petitioner-appellant that he was unlawfully detained

after arrest and that his constitutional rights were violated in connection with
the obtaining of extrajudicial statements must also be rejected.
18
Having concluded that the plea herein was voluntary, it follows that he can not
complain about alleged involuntary confessions which were not used against
him.4
19
His further contention that he was illegally detained must for the same reasons
be rejected.5
20
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Notes:
1
"THE COURT: Now, the Court wants to advise you that you heard some
discussion here this morning going on between your attorney and the
department of justice [sic]. This has been going on without any knowledge
about it on my part. You have heard it announced that the Government is not
going to reduce the charge, that you stand charged in the same manner in which
you were arraigned, there will be no change
"MR. SEMET: Yes, sir.
"THE COURT: You should not consider it as being any kind of a promise, you
understand that?
"THE COURT: Now, has anyone by any manner or means given you any
promises to cause you to enter a plea of guilty in this case?
"MR. SEMET: No, sir.
"THE COURT: Anyone used any force or any pressure to cause you to change
your plea?
"MR. SEMET: No, sir.
"THE COURT: Are you guilty of this offense?
"THE COURT: Did you use a pistol?
"THE COURT: And did you rob this Post Office and this Post Mistress and
take the Post Office Money Orders?
"THE COURT: The Court will accept your plea of guilty and refer the matter to
the Probation Officer for a presnetence [sic] report."
2
Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 82 S.Ct. 510, 7 L.Ed.2d 473;
Puckett v. United States, 10 Cir. 1963, 314 F.2d 298
Putnam v. United States, 10 Cir. 1964, 337 F.2d 313
Barnhart v. United States, 10 Cir. 1959, 270 F.2d 866; Hall v. United States, 8
Cir. 1958, 259 F.2d 430; cert. denied 359 U.S. 947, 79 S.Ct. 728, 3 L.Ed.2d 680
See United States v. Kniess, 7 Cir. 1959, 264 F.2d 353

William Frederick Semet v. United States, 369 F.2d 90, 10th Cir. (1966)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

William Frederick Semet v. United States, 369 F.2d 90, 10th Cir. (1966)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

William Frederick Semet v. United States, 369 F.2d 90, 10th Cir. (1966)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

369 F.

William Frederick SEMET, Appellant,

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

Thomas J. Nance, Denver, Colo., for appellant.

Cecil E. Robertson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Muskogee, Okl. (Bruce Green, U. S.

WILLIAM E. DOYLE, District Judge.

This is an appeal by a confined federal prisoner seeking reversal of an order of

Petitioner-appellant is now serving a mandatory sentence of twenty-five years

The claim asserted in the original petition is that petitioner-appellant's plea of

The Court also questioned petitioner-appellant at length concerning the

No basis is apparent for the contention of petitioner-appellant that he was

We are mindful that a plea of guilty induced by threats or promises is not a

The other contentions of petitioner-appellant that he was unlawfully detained

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Putnam v. United States, 10 Cir. 1964, 337 F.2d 313

See United States v. Kniess, 7 Cir. 1959, 264 F.2d 353

You might also like