John Frederick Bartelt, Petitioner-appellant, v. Hon. Ernest Guinn, District Judge, U.S. District Court Forthe Western District of Texas, Respondent-appellee, 485 F.2d 250 (5th Cir. 1973)
Annotate this CaseCarl B. Lee, (Court-Appointed), Dallas, Tex., for petitioner-appellant.
William S. Sessions, U. S. Atty., Ronald F. Ederer, Asst. U. S. Atty., El Paso, Tex., for respondent-appellee.
Before GEWIN, COLEMAN and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
John Frederick Bartelt filed a motion to vacate sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging that his retained counsel had failed to file and prosecute a direct appeal from a criminal conviction despite assurances that such would be done. The motion was denied without a hearing and Bartelt appeals.
Upon examination of the record, we find that an evidentiary hearing should have been held, with appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law, Atilus v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969, 406 F.2d 694; Fuentes v. United States, 5 Cir., 1972, 455 F.2d 910; Powers v. United States, 5 Cir., 1971, 446 F.2d 22; Gallegos v. United States, 5 Cir., 1972, 466 F.2d 740; Rodriquez v. United States, 395 U.S. 327, 89 S. Ct. 1715, 23 L. Ed. 2d 340 (1969).
The judgment of the District Court is accordingly vacated and the cause remanded for a full evidentiary hearing on the motion, at which time petitioner will be allowed to testify and, as an indigent, will be allowed appointed counsel.
Vacated and remanded.
Rule 18, 5 Cir.; See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
