From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brule v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 22, 1957
240 F.2d 589 (9th Cir. 1957)

Summary

holding that the proper remedy for raising a sufficiency of the evidence claim is on direct appeal

Summary of this case from Chavarria v. United States

Opinion

No. 15192.

January 22, 1957.

Joseph M. Brule, in pro. per.

Charles P. Moriarty, U.S. Atty., F.N. Cushman, Asst. U.S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for appellee.

Before STEPHENS, FEE and BARNES, Circuit Judges.


This is an appeal from an order of the District Court denying appellant motion (under Section 2255, Title 28, U.S.C.) to vacate and set aside an alleged illegal sentence.

Appellant attempts to contest the sufficiency of the evidence to arrest, detain or convict him. A motion under Section 2255, and an appeal therefrom, cannot be used to raise such an issue. Appellant here took no direct appeal from his judgment of conviction. That was the remedy the law gave him. Hanley v. United States, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 400, 222 F.2d 566; Finan v. United States, 4 Cir., 177 F.2d 850.

Because appellant asserts there was insufficient evidence to convict, he also asserts he was denied equal protection under the law. He was indicted by a Grand Jury, promptly arraigned, notified of the charge against him, of his right to counsel and to bond. He was granted two continuances of his trial. He was tried by jury, and defended by counsel of his choice. He had a right to appeal his conviction, but did not avail himself of that right. He has had full equal protection of the law, and the decision of the District Court denying his motion to vacate and set side an alleged illegal sentence is

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Brule v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 22, 1957
240 F.2d 589 (9th Cir. 1957)

holding that the proper remedy for raising a sufficiency of the evidence claim is on direct appeal

Summary of this case from Chavarria v. United States

finding that § 2255 cannot be used to challenge sufficiency of evidence to convict

Summary of this case from Thorson v. United States

finding that§ 2255 cannot be used to challenge sufficiency of evidence to convict

Summary of this case from United States v. Shepard
Case details for

Brule v. United States

Case Details

Full title:Joseph M. BRULE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jan 22, 1957

Citations

240 F.2d 589 (9th Cir. 1957)

Citing Cases

United States v. Tunstell

That the evidence was otherwise insufficient to convict, and that by reason of these alleged circumstances,…

United States v. Shepard

Moreover, to any extent Shepard is asserting that insufficient evidence was presented at trial to justify the…