John Papalia v. United States, 333 F.2d 620, 2d Cir. (1964)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsJohn Papalia v. United States, 333 F.2d 620, 2d Cir. (1964)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs333 F.
2d 620
John PAPALIA, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 489.
Docket 28890.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued June 3, 1964.
Decided June 19, 1964.
Certiorari Denied October 12, 1964.
See 85 S.Ct. 74.
Arthur Addess of Bobick & Deutsch, New York City, for petitionerappellant.
Michael W. Mitchell, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S.
Atty. and Bernard W. Nussbaum, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for
appellee.
Before MOORE, KAUFMAN and HAYS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Eleven months after sentencing, petitioner, John Papalia, moved to withdraw
his plea of guilty, Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(d), or in the alternative to vacate the
sentence, 28 U.S.C. 2255 (1958), on the ground that at the time of the plea
and sentencing he "was mentally incompetent to either plead or be sentenced."
After hearing the testimony of Papalia and his supporting witnesses, the district
judge summarily granted the government's motion to dismiss with the terse
comment, "The case is a tissue of lies from A to Z." On this appeal Papalia
claims (1) that the district judge erred in failing to make specific findings of
fact and conclusions of law and (2) that, on the evidence presented at the
hearing, he was entitled to relief.
Although Papalia made no request below for formal findings of fact and
Although Papalia made no request below for formal findings of fact and
conclusions of law, he contends here that the failure to make such findings
violated 28 U.S.C. 2255 (1958) which provides:
"Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that
the petitioner is entitled to no relief, the court shall cause notice thereof to be
served upon the United States attorney, grant a prompt hearing thereon,
determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with
respect thereto. * * *" (Emphasis added.)
But the district judge's comment clearly indicated the court's essential findings
that Papalia's story was unworthy of belief and that Papalia was mentally
competent at the time of his plea and sentencing. Although fuller findings
might have been helpful, we cannot say that Papalia has been prejudiced by
their absence. See Rossiter v. Vogel, 148 F.2d 292, 293 (2d Cir.1945); HuardSteinheiser, Inc. v. Henry, 280 F.2d 79, 84 (6th Cir. 1960); 5 Moore, Federal
Practice 52.06[2] (2d ed. 1951).
Papalia's contention that on the evidence presented at the hearing he was
entitled to withdraw his guilty plea is only a disagreement with the district
judge's conclusion. We have examined the evidence and hold that the district
judge's conclusion is not clearly erroneous. Papalia did not sustain his burden of
proving that he was not mentally competent when he entered his guilty plea and
was sentenced. See Holmes v. United States, 323 F.2d 430 (7th Cir. 1963), cert.
denied, 376 U.S. 933, 84 S.Ct. 704, 11 L.Ed. 652 (1964); United States v.
Harris, 211 F.Supp. 771 (S.D.Fla. 1962), aff'd 316 F.2d 229 (5th Cir.1963).
Affirmed.
