Albert Sidney Denton v. United States, 465 F.2d 1394 (5th Cir. 1972). · Go Syfert
Albert Sidney Denton v. United States, 465 F.2d 1394 (5th Cir. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Strother v. United States (ilsd, 2024-02-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Strother v. United States
S.D. Ill. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the grand jury indictment...following his arrest remedied any defect in the complaint and arrest warrant.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Strother v. United States
S.D. Ill. · 2023 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the grand jury indictment...following his arrest remedied any defect in the complaint and arrest warrant.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gumbs v. Penn, Jr
D.V.I. · 2019 · confidence medium
Denton v. United States, 465 F.2d 1394, 1395 (5th Cir. 1972)(citing Tanner v. United States, 296 F.2d 218 (10th Cir. 1961))(noting that Denton’s challenge to the complaint and arrest warrant was foreclosed because “the grand jury indictment of Denton following his arrest remedied any defect in the complaint and arrest warrant”).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Calzada
5th Cir. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Denton v. United States, 465 F.2d 1394, 1395 (5th Cir. 1972).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Campbell
5th Cir. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Denton v. United States, 465 F.2d 1394, 1395 (5th Cir. 1972).
cited Cited "see" State v. MacArthur
Me. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Denton v. United States, 465 F.2d 1394 (5th Cir. 1972); Tanner v. United States, 296 F.2d 218 (10th Cir. 1961).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Albert Sidney DENTON, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
72-2066.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Sep 13, 1972.
465 F.2d 1394
Albert Sidney Denton, pro se., R. Jackson B. Smith, Jr., U. S. Atty., Henry L. Whisenhunt, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Augusta, Ga., for respondent-ap-pellee.
Wisdom, God, Ro-Ney.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

This appeal is taken from the district court’s order denying this federal pris[*1395] oner’s motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm.

In 1954, Denton was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment for bank robbery and conspiracy. The sentence was to be served after a life sentence for an Alabama state murder conviction, which he was then serving.

In 1970, Denton filed a § 2255 motion to vacate his federal sentence on the ground that the sentencing judge was given erroneous information concerning the time when he would become eligible for parole from the life sentence under Alabama law. The motion was granted and the sentence was set aside. On February 22, 1971, Denton was resentenced to serve five years, to run consecutive to the state sentence.

Denton is now in federal custody, having been paroled on the Alabama murder conviction. He has moved to vacate the five year federal sentence contending, first, that the complaint upon which the arrest warrant was based was defective, and second, that his guilty plea was coerced and involuntary. The district court found that his guilty plea was voluntary and held that his other claim was barred by a grand jury indictment.

The record includes a transcript of the resentencing proceedings of February 22, 1971. In response to numerous questions posed to him by both the court and his counsel concerning the voluntariness of his plea of guilty, Denton unequivocally stated that the plea was given freely and voluntarily. In addition, his counsel stated at the hearing in Denton’s presence that Denton “has always told me that the plea was freely and voluntarily entered with full understanding on his part of all the consequences.” The court did not err in finding that the plea was voluntary, without holding another hearing on the present § 2255 motion.

Denton’s challenge to the complaint and arrest warrant is foreclosed for two reasons. First, the grand jury indictment of Denton following his arrest remedied any defect in the complaint and arrest warrant. Tanner v. United States, 296 F.2d 218 (10th Cir. 1961). Second, his plea of guilty, knowingly and voluntarily given, constituted a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings up to that point. Williamson v. Alabama, 441 F.2d 549 (5th Cir. 1971); Stephen v. Smith, 438 F.2d 979 (5th Cir. 1971); Henderson v. Alabama, 395 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1968).

The court properly denied the § 2255 motion to vacate the five year sentence.

Affirmed.