Professional Documents
Culture Documents
John J. Ching v. United States, 338 F.2d 333, 10th Cir. (1965)
John J. Ching v. United States, 338 F.2d 333, 10th Cir. (1965)
2d 333
A full transcript of all proceedings involving the appellant were before the trial
Court, and had been the basis for the disposition of more than 'thirty motions,
applications, letters and the like related in some fashion to post-conviction
efforts.' The Court accordingly decided the contentions made here 'solely on
the basis of facts as of record' and denied the same as being without merit,
whether considered as a motion to withdraw a guilty plea under Rule 32(d) or as
a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. And see: Ching v. United
The execution of the consent to transfer forms is conceded. The contention is,
however, that actual receipt of the Informations is prerequisite to the
jurisdiction of the sentencing court; and, that the record does not conclusively
show this crucial fact. But, each consent form signed by appellant and
witnessed by his attorney contained a clause expressly reciting that, 'I, John
Jake Ching, defendant in the above-entitled and numbered case, do hereby
acknowledge receipt of a copy of the Criminal Information pending against me
in the above case.' In these circumstances, there are no grounds for the exercise
of the Court's discretion under Rule 32(d) to vacate the sentence and permit the
appellant to withdraw his plea. See: Woykovsky v. United States, 9 Cir., 309
F.2d 381; Criser v. United States, 10 Cir., 319 F.2d 849; Hoyt v. United States
(10 CA), 252 F.2d 460; and Osborne v. Looney (10 CA), 221 F.2d 254.
The record conclusively shows that appellant was represented by counsel of his
own choice at every step of the proceedings, and that he intelligently and
voluntarily consented to the jurisdiction of the sentencing court and freely and
voluntarily entered his pleas of guilty upon which he was sentenced.
Affirmed.