Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    James G. Martin v. United States, 463 F.2d 220, 3rd Cir. (1972)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court opinion summarizing a case in which James G. Martin appealed the denial of his motion to vacate his sentence. The court had previously affirmed Martin's conviction for drug offenses. In this latest appeal, Martin argued that 1) he was under the influence of narcotics at the time of his arrest and unable to form criminal intent, and 2) he was mentally incompetent at the time of trial and sentencing due to drug effects. However, the district court found no evidence to support Martin's claims, as his own lawyer had argued at earlier proceedings that Martin was no longer addicted. Additionally, though given an opportunity, Martin did not provide any evidence at a hearing to establish his asserted mental incompetence. The

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    James G. Martin v. United States, 463 F.2d 220, 3rd Cir. (1972)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    15 views3 pages
    This document is a court opinion summarizing a case in which James G. Martin appealed the denial of his motion to vacate his sentence. The court had previously affirmed Martin's conviction for drug offenses. In this latest appeal, Martin argued that 1) he was under the influence of narcotics at the time of his arrest and unable to form criminal intent, and 2) he was mentally incompetent at the time of trial and sentencing due to drug effects. However, the district court found no evidence to support Martin's claims, as his own lawyer had argued at earlier proceedings that Martin was no longer addicted. Additionally, though given an opportunity, Martin did not provide any evidence at a hearing to establish his asserted mental incompetence. The

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1972-06-28 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 463 F.2d 220 Docket: 71-1952

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a court opinion summarizing a case in which James G. Martin appealed the denial of his motion to vacate his sentence. The court had previously affirmed Martin's conviction for drug offenses. In this latest appeal, Martin argued that 1) he was under the influence of narcotics at the time of his arrest and unable to form criminal intent, and 2) he was mentally incompetent at the time of trial and sentencing due to drug effects. However, the district court found no evidence to support Martin's claims, as his own lawyer had argued at earlier proceedings that Martin was no longer addicted. Additionally, though given an opportunity, Martin did not provide any evidence at a hearing to establish his asserted mental incompetence. The

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    15 views3 pages

    James G. Martin v. United States, 463 F.2d 220, 3rd Cir. (1972)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court opinion summarizing a case in which James G. Martin appealed the denial of his motion to vacate his sentence. The court had previously affirmed Martin's conviction for drug offenses. In this latest appeal, Martin argued that 1) he was under the influence of narcotics at the time of his arrest and unable to form criminal intent, and 2) he was mentally incompetent at the time of trial and sentencing due to drug effects. However, the district court found no evidence to support Martin's claims, as his own lawyer had argued at earlier proceedings that Martin was no longer addicted. Additionally, though given an opportunity, Martin did not provide any evidence at a hearing to establish his asserted mental incompetence. The

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    463 F.

    2d 220

    James G. MARTIN, Appellant,


    v.
    UNITED STATES of America.
    No. 71-1952.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    Third Circuit.
    Submitted June 19, 1972 Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6)
    Decided June 28, 1972.

    James G. Martin, pro se.


    Richard L. Thornburgh, Blair A. Griffith, Asst. U. S. Atty., Pittsburgh,
    Pa., for appellee.
    Before ALDISERT, JAMES ROSEN and HUNTER, Circuit Judges.
    OPINION OF THE COURT
    PER CURIAM:

    This appeal from a motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255
    represents the third proceeding in this court brought by appellant, convicted of
    four counts for violations of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 174 and 26 U.S.C. Sec. 4704(a).
    After the conviction was affirmed on appeal, United States v. Martin, 386 F.2d
    213 (3d Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 862, 89 S.Ct. 142, 21 L.Ed.2d 130
    (1968), appellant moved, under F.R.Crim.P. 35, for correction of the sentence.
    Following a hearing, the concurrent sentences imposed on counts 2 and 4 were
    vacated. United States v. Martin, 302 F.Supp. 498 (W.D.Pa.1969), aff'd, 428
    F.2d 1140 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 960, 91 S.Ct. 361, 27 L.Ed.2d 269
    (1970).

    In this appeal from the denial of his motion to vacate sentence, appellant
    contends (1) that he was under the influence of narcotics at the time of his
    arrest, and was incapable of formulating the criminal intent necessary to

    commit the offenses charged, and (2) that due to the effects of narcotics, he was
    mentally incompetent at the time of his trial and sentencing.1
    3

    We have carefully considered all of the contentions presented by appellant, and


    have concluded that there was a proper disposition by the district court in the
    well reasoned opinion of Chief Judge Marsh, 327 F.Supp. 126 (W.D. Pa.1971).
    Judge Marsh noted that at appellant's bail hearing, appellant introduced no
    evidence of drug addiction at the time of his arrest. Quite to the contrary,
    appellant's counsel argued at the hearing:

    4 evidence introduced and made available by the Government indicated that he is


    The
    no longer addicted, and he apparently no longer has this problem, so the rationale of
    his having to go back into the peddling business isn't a logical conclusion at this
    stage. In fact, the Government has effectively proven this for us.
    Later, his counsel again stated:
    5We have substantially proven that he is no longer subject to addiction. . . .
    6

    As for appellant's claim that he was mentally incompetent to stand trial due to
    the influence of drugs, Chief Judge Marsh stated:

    7 felt that, despite the record, the allegations raised disputed issues of fact and that
    We
    the petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to be heard. Sanders v. United
    States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963).
    8
    Counsel
    was appointed for the petitioner and a hearing was held. At the hearing,
    Martin and his counsel notified the court that no evidence or testimony would be
    offered in support of his allegation that he was mentally incompetent due to his use
    of drugs at the time of his trial and sentencing.
    9

    The burden rested on the petitioner to establish by evidence his asserted mental
    incompetence at the time of the trial and sentencing. Johnston v. United States,
    292 F.2d 51 (10th Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 368 U. S. 906, 82 S.Ct. 186, 7
    L.Ed.2d 100 (1961). The petitioner offered no specific evidence of his mental
    incompetence at the time of trial or sentencing or any evidence that he did not
    have sufficient ability to consult with his lawyer or that he did not have a
    rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Neither did
    he offer any evidence of his own use of narcotics immediately before or during
    trial nor any evidence of deprivation which might have caused withdrawal
    symptoms during trial and sentencing.

    10

    327 F.Supp. at 128.

    11

    Accordingly, the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

    Appellant also rehearses those arguments which were rejected by this court in
    his previous appeal, viz., that the sentence imposed for unlawful possession of
    narcotics constituted cruel and unusual punishment and contravened the equal
    protection clause because appellant was addicted to drugs at the time of his
    arrest. 428 F.2d 1140, 1143 (3d Cir. 1970)

    You might also like