Ready to print. Press Ctrl+P (⌘+P on Mac), or
CaseSearch
Open CaseSearch appOpen app

Trumblay v. United States

No. 12859
Decided United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit
Disposition
affirmed
full scope · unanimous
Scan to open on mobileScan to open on another device
Court
District Court (unspecified district)
Decided
Judge
DUFFY, Circuit Judge
Posture
Defendant convicted by jury on two counts of bank robbery and assault
Defendant/Petitioner (1)
Lawrence A. Trumblay
Prentice H. Marshall, Esq., of the Chicago Bar (court-appointed on appeal)
v.
Respondent (1)
United States of America
Kenneth C. Raub, U.S. Attorney, Hammond, Ind., Charles R. Le Master, Fort Wayne, Ind.
Decedent / victim: Bank employee shot during robbery

Overview

Affirmed. The District Court's denial of defendant's third § 2255 motion without a hearing is affirmed.

Case summary

Lawrence Trumblay was convicted in 1953 of bank robbery and assault with a dangerous weapon. After multiple appeals and § 2255 motions, he filed a third § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing because his attorney stated he knew nothing about the case except newspaper reports. The District Court denied the motion without a hearing. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the attorney's statement did not constitute ineffective assistance given the pre-sentence report provided the judge with necessary information, and that the successive motion was an abuse of judicial process. The court also found no prejudice from the prosecutor's characterization of Trumblay as dangerous.

Abstract

Defendant was convicted of bank robbery and assault with a dangerous weapon and later filed a third motion for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing due to the attorney's limited knowledge of the case. The district court denied the motion without a hearing, and the appellate court affirmed, finding the attorney's statement did not amount to ineffective assistance given the pre-sentence report's sufficiency and deeming the successive motion an abuse of judicial process. No prejudice was found from the prosecutor's characterization of the defendant as dangerous.

Opinion of the court

Majority
opinionDUFFY, Circuit Judgejoined by HASTINGS, Chief Judge, CASTLE, Circuit Judge
  • Successive § 2255 motions can be denied without hearing if abuse of process
  • Defense counsel's statement at sentencing not ineffective assistance
  • Prosecutor's characterization not prejudicial
  • Pre-sentence report provided judge with necessary information

Jurisdiction

not challenged
Statutory basis
28 U.S.C. § 2255
Subject matter
Appeal from denial of motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Jurisdictional facts
  • Defendant filed motion under § 2255 to vacate conviction
  • District Court denied motion without hearing
  • Defendant appealed denial

Procedural posture

Posture at trial
Defendant convicted by jury on two counts of bank robbery and assault
Posture on appeal
Direct appeal from denial of § 2255 motion
Preserved issues
  • Ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing

Subsequent history

Petition for rehearing
not filed
Rehearing en banc
not filed
Petition for certiorari
not filed

Legal categories

Criminal

Case record

Full case name
Lawrence A. Trumblay v. United States of America
Docket number
No. 12859
Court
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit
Trial court
District Court (unspecified district)
Trial court judge
Unspecified
Decided
Opinion author
DUFFY, Circuit Judge
Opinion type
published
Precedential status
precedential
Judges on panel
HASTINGS, Chief JudgeDUFFY, Circuit JudgeCASTLE, Circuit Judge

Issues & holdings

2
Issues raised
2
affirmed
2
Holdings
Standard of review

abuse of discretion

Disposition rationale

Defense counsel's statement did not constitute ineffective assistance; trial judge acted within discretion in denying § 2255 motion without hearing

Preservation

Issue preserved for review

Standard of review

abuse of discretion

Disposition rationale

Motion, files, and records conclusively showed defendant entitled to no relief; successive motion constituted abuse of judicial process

Preservation

Issue preserved for review

Holdings of the court

Ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing
Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel at sentencing
Defense counsel's statement acknowledging lack of case knowledge was not ineffective given pre-sentence report provided judge with necessary information; counsel could only urge light sentence after guilty verdict
unanimousbinding precedent
Denial of § 2255 motion without hearing
District Court did not abuse discretion in denying third § 2255 motion without hearing
Successive motion constituted abuse of judicial process; motion, files, and records conclusively showed no entitlement to relief; defendant personally knew sentencing events
unanimousbinding precedent

Error analysis

  • Ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing — constitutional · no error foundNot applicable · not applicable
  • Denial of § 2255 motion without hearing — procedural · no error foundNot applicable · not applicable

Statutory interpretation

1
Statute
28 U.S.C. § 2255
Question
Whether court must entertain successive motions
Court's reading
Court not required to entertain successive motions but may exercise discretion
Canons applied
Plain meaning
no legislative history

Burden of proof

Prosecution burden
Beyond a reasonable doubt (at trial)
Defence burden
Preponderance of evidence for § 2255 motion
Burden met
false

Standards of review

  • Denial of § 2255 motion without hearing — abuse of discretion District Court has discretion to deny successive § 2255 motions without hearing if motion, files, and records show no entitlement to relief
  • Ineffective assistance of counsel claim — abuse of discretion Review of trial court's determination on ineffective assistance claim under § 2255

Timeline

Procedural path

Trial convictionSentencingFirst motion filedCount I vacatedSecond motion filedMotion deniedThird motion deniedAppeal affirmed
5
Events
2,525
Days, incident to ruling
—
Span
trial eventcited in opinion

Defendant tried and convicted by jury on two counts of bank robbery and assault

Outcome: Guilty verdict on both counts

Established defendant's guilt for subsequent appeals

All issues on appeal relate to post-conviction proceedings
Lawrence Trumblay · Trial attorneys (two competent attorneys of his own choosing) · Judge · Jury District Court trial court
sentencingcited in opinion

Defendant sentenced to 5 years on Count I and 25 years on Count II consecutively

Outcome: 30-year total sentence imposed

Basis for ineffective assistance claim - defense counsel stated he knew nothing about case

Ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing
Lawrence Trumblay · Attorney Harry S. Taylor · Judge · U.S. Attorney District Court trial court
filingcited in opinion

Defendant filed first motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate sentence

Outcome: Sentence on Count I vacated, Count II sentence left intact

First post-conviction challenge

Successive motions issue
Lawrence Trumblay · Two attorneys of his own choosing District Court trial court
filingcited in opinion

Defendant filed second motion under § 2255 alleging ineffective assistance at trial

Outcome: Denied without hearing, affirmed on appeal

Second post-conviction challenge

Successive motions issue
Lawrence Trumblay · Court-appointed counsel on appeal District Court trial court
appeal eventcited in opinion

Third § 2255 motion denied without hearing, defendant appeals

Outcome: Affirmed

Current appeal decision

All issues on appeal
Lawrence Trumblay · Prentice H. Marshall (court-appointed) · Seventh Circuit panel Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals appellate court

Facts & evidence

Incident

Date
1953 (specific date not provided)
Location
Bank in South Bend, Indiana

Key facts

7 facts
  1. Defendant convicted of bank robbery and assault with dangerous weapon
  2. Sentenced to 5 years on Count I and 25 years on Count II consecutively
  3. Defendant filed multiple § 2255 motions
  4. Current appeal challenges denial of third § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance at sentencing
  5. At sentencing, defense counsel stated he knew nothing about case except newspaper reports
  6. Prosecutor characterized defendant as dangerous as John Dillinger
  7. Judge referenced pre-sentence report showing defendant's long criminal history

Disputed questions

  • Whether defense counsel's statement at sentencing constituted ineffective assistance
  • Whether prosecutor's characterization of defendant was prejudicial

Procedural history

7 steps
  1. 1953: Convicted after trial
  2. 1953: First appeal affirmed
  3. 1955: First § 2255 motion partially granted (Count I vacated)
  4. 1956: Affirmed on appeal
  5. 1957: Second § 2255 motion denied without hearing
  6. 1958: Affirmed on appeal
  7. 1960: Third § 2255 motion denied without hearing, appealed

Evidence in the record

Testimonial
  • Testimony showing four gang members robbed bank
  • Testimony that bank employee was shot with sawed-off shotgun
Documentary
  • Pre-sentence investigation report
Challenged
  • Evidence type: Prosecutor's statements at sentencing · Challenge basis: Prejudicial characterization · Trial court ruling: admitted · Reasoning: Not extreme given shooting during robbery · Challenged on appeal: true · Appellate outcome: affirmed

Jury

Verdict
Guilty on both counts
Jury instructions challenged
  • [object Object]

Sentencing

Sentence imposed
5 years on Count I and 25 years on Count II, consecutive
Sentence type
discretionary
Sentencing date
1953-04-10
Sentence challenged on appeal
true
Sentencing issues
  • Excessive sentence (raised in first § 2255 motion)
  • Ineffective assistance at sentencing

Objects of relevance

Sawed-off shotgun used in bank robbery

Policy considerations

  • Judicial economy in handling successive post-conviction motions
  • Preventing abuse of judicial process through repetitive filings

Authorities

Cited authorities (3)

Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266 (1948)
distinguishedprecedent
Doctrine on successive habeas petitions applied to § 2255 motions
at 334 U.S. 266 Five to four decision on burden for successive petitions
Smith v. United States, 270 F.2d 921 (D.C. Cir. 1959)
discussedprecedent
Illustration of different interpretations of Price v. Johnston in § 2255 context
at 270 F.2d 921 En banc decision with multiple opinions
Turner v. United States, 258 F.2d 165 (D.C. Cir. 1958)
followedquotedprecedent
Precedent on District Court discretion to deny successive § 2255 motions
at 258 F.2d at 166-167 District Judge has discretion to deny relief on allegations not raised earlier

Related cases (6)

United States v. Trumblay, 7 Cir., 1953, 208 F.2d 147
prior appeal
Affirmed conviction
United States v. Trumblay, 7 Cir., 1956, 234 F.2d 273
prior appeal
Affirmed denial of first § 2255 motion
United States v. Trumblay, 7 Cir., 1958, 256 F.2d 615
prior appeal
Affirmed denial of second § 2255 motion
Price v. Johnston, 1948, 334 U.S. 266
precedent
Remanded for hearing on successive habeas petition
Smith v. United States, D.C. Cir., 1959, 270 F.2d 921
precedent
Reversed and remanded for hearing on competency
Turner v. United States, 1958, 258 F.2d 165
precedent
Affirmed denial of successive § 2255 motion

Statutes

  • 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (bank robbery)
  • 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) (assault during robbery)
  • 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (motion to vacate sentence)

Standards & doctrines

  • Abuse of discretion standard for reviewing § 2255 motion denials
  • Price v. Johnston doctrine on successive habeas petitions applied to § 2255

Legal principles applied

  • District Court discretion to deny successive § 2255 motions without hearing if abuse of process
  • Pre-sentence report provides judge with necessary information for sentencing

Notable quotes

“"I know nothing about the defendant's background, previous record, or the facts of this case, except what I read in the newspaper, and it is presumptuous for me to say anything at this particular time..."”
Attorney Taylor (quoted in opinion) — Defense counsel Harry S. Taylor's statement at sentencing
Basis for ineffective assistance claim
“"Whatever the basis of the strategy, we regard it as an abuse of the judicial process."”
DUFFY, Circuit Judge — Court's assessment of defendant's successive § 2255 motions
Rationale for affirming denial without hearing
Index terms93
Summary terms
Legal mechanisms
Various actions
Various actors
Legal concepts
Legal outcomes
Legal issues
Legal procedures
Legal remedies
Legal evidence
Legal arguments
Legal defenses
Legal penalties
Legal procedural steps
Geo locations
Judges
Attorneys
Procedural terms
Substantive offenses
Entities and documentation
Legal actions
Action type
affirmed
Target
District Court order denying § 2255 motion without hearing
Appealed from
District Court
Context
Seventh Circuit affirms District Court's denial of defendant's third § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance at sentencing
Scope
full
Disposition vote
unanimous
Search facets
Parties
Judges
Hastings
Courts
Locations
Statutes cited
Practice areas
Other index terms