Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 72 views

    Druan v. United States, 1st Cir. (1993)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Joseph Druan's petition for habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The district court properly disposed of the case without a hearing as Druan's petition and the record revealed he was not entitled to relief. The district court judge was familiar with the facts from presiding over Druan's Rule 11 and sentencing hearings and was entitled to make findings without an additional hearing. The district court judge's findings that Druan's guilty plea was voluntary and that his counsel provided effective assistance were supported by the record.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Druan v. United States, 1st Cir. (1993)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    72 views5 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Joseph Druan's petition for habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The district court properly disposed of the case without a hearing as Druan's petition and the record revealed he was not entitled to relief. The district court judge was familiar with the facts from presiding over Druan's Rule 11 and sentencing hearings and was entitled to make findings without an additional hearing. The district court judge's findings that Druan's guilty plea was voluntary and that his counsel provided effective assistance were supported by the record.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1993-10-07 Precedential Status: Precedential Docket: 93-1092

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Joseph Druan's petition for habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The district court properly disposed of the case without a hearing as Druan's petition and the record revealed he was not entitled to relief. The district court judge was familiar with the facts from presiding over Druan's Rule 11 and sentencing hearings and was entitled to make findings without an additional hearing. The district court judge's findings that Druan's guilty plea was voluntary and that his counsel provided effective assistance were supported by the record.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    72 views5 pages

    Druan v. United States, 1st Cir. (1993)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Joseph Druan's petition for habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The district court properly disposed of the case without a hearing as Druan's petition and the record revealed he was not entitled to relief. The district court judge was familiar with the facts from presiding over Druan's Rule 11 and sentencing hearings and was entitled to make findings without an additional hearing. The district court judge's findings that Druan's guilty plea was voluntary and that his counsel provided effective assistance were supported by the record.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 5

    USCA1 Opinion

    October 7, 1993
    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
    ____________________
    No. 93-1092
    JOSEPH F. DRUAN,
    Petitioner, Appellant,
    v.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Respondent, Appellee.
    ____________________
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
    [Hon. Frank H. Freedman, U.S. District Judge]
    ___________________
    ____________________
    Before
    Selya, Boudin and Stahl,
    Circuit Judges.
    ______________
    ____________________
    Joseph F. Druan on brief pro se.
    _______________

    A. John Pappalardo, United States Attorney, and Andrew Levch


    ___________________
    _____________
    Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
    ____________________
    ____________________

    Per Curiam.
    __________
    the denial of his
    U.S.C.

    2255.

    Appellant Joseph F. Druan appeals from

    petition for habeas corpus filed

    under 28

    After carefully reviewing the record and the

    parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the district court


    for essentially the reasons stated in its Order dated January
    5, 1993.

    We add to that decision the following comments.


    The district

    without a hearing.
    where
    and

    "An

    the section 2255


    the record

    court properly disposed of


    evidentiary hearing is not

    this case
    required

    petition, any accompanying exhibits,

    evidence `plainly

    [reveal] .

    movant is not entitled to relief. . . . '"

    . .

    that the

    Barrett v. United
    _______
    ______

    States, 965
    ______

    F.2d 1184,

    1186 (1st

    4(b), Rules

    Governing Section

    Cir. 1992)

    (quoting Rule

    2255 Proceedings).

    That is,

    summary dismissal is appropriate where the grounds for relief


    are not cognizable under

    2255 or are merely bald assertions

    without specific and particular factual allegations.

    Id.
    ___

    We

    agree with the district court that the petition was deficient
    in both regards.
    Further, Druan did not submit any valid reasons why
    he

    now should be

    relieved of the statements

    change-of-plea hearing.

    See
    ___

    Ouellette v. United States, 862


    _________
    _____________

    F.2d 371, 374 (1st Cir. 1988).


    based

    on

    familiar

    facts with
    because he

    sentencing hearings.

    findings

    without

    an

    overturn his findings

    which

    His claims in this regard are


    the

    district court

    had presided
    As

    he made in his

    at both

    such, he

    additional

    was

    the Rule
    entitled

    hearing and

    absent clear error.

    judge

    See
    ___

    we

    was

    11 and
    to

    make

    will

    not

    Barrett, 965
    _______

    F.2d

    at 1186;

    975, 985 n.8


    (1990).

    Panzardi-Alvarez v.
    ________________
    (1st Cir.

    1989), cert. denied,


    ____________

    Under this standard

    judge's findings

    United States,
    _____________

    of review, the

    that Druan's guilty plea

    that his counsel provided

    879 F.2d

    493 U.S.

    1082

    district court

    was voluntary and

    effective assistance are more than

    adequately supported by the record.


    As
    petition

    for Druan's

    raised a

    attempt to

    jurisdictional

    argue that his

    issue because

    no

    2255
    "overt

    acts" had occurred in Massachusetts, we note only that at the


    change-of-plea hearing the government

    plainly set forth

    the

    fact that the videotape, made in Connecticut, was transported


    to

    Massachusetts.

    Druan, at

    this

    hearing,

    specifically

    agreed with this description of the facts.


    The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
    ________

    -3-

    You might also like