Legal Opinion
Franklin Eugene Watts, Jr. v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided March 2, 1988No. 86-15019PublishedCited by 84 opinions
1Per curiam
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 a judge may hear a motion by expanding the record with documentary testimony and evidence. In this ease we consider the circumstances in which such a hearing is proper. We conclude that Judge Dueñas satisfied the requirements of section 2255 by ruling on Watts’ motion based on the record of the plea hearing, affidavits from all witnesses to the plea agreement, interrogatories of Watts and his wife, the judge’s own recollections of the proceedings, Watts’ Rule 35 motion and letters written to the judge by Watts. We affirm the denial of the motion.
BACKGROUND
Watts pleaded…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Blackledge v. AllisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- MacHibroda v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Roy Edward Raines v. United States of America, Michael Pasterchik v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1970
- Marcus T. Baumann v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- Lawrence Leroy Farrow v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1978
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by84 opinions
- United States v. GinnCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1997
- Stanley Williams v. Jeanne S. Woodford, Warden, California State Prison, San QuentinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Ramee Jamal Shah, Aka: Eddie Harris, Jr. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- Daniel Eugene Frazer v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- James Richard Terrovona v. Lawrence Kincheloe, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
79 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.