The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEVET
OPINION, FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Petitioner, Edward Felder, Jr., moves pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for an order vacating the sentence imposed on him May 25, 1965. He contends (1) that he was deprived of his right to appeal in that he was not informed either by the court or by his assigned counsel that he could appeal and that any appeal could be brought without expense to himself; and (2) that evidence introduced at trial resulted from an illegal search and seizure and entrapment.
After studying the memoranda and arguments of the parties and conducting a hearing February 9, 1970, at which time petitioner and his former attorney testified, the court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
KNOWLEDGE OF THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHOUT EXPENSE
1. On April 5, 1965, an indictment was filed in this court charging petitioner with two counts in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 173 and 174 (sale of heroin hydrochloride on two occasions). The case was tried before me on April 27, 1965. Petitioner was represented by Bernard Moldow, Esq., who was then attorney in charge of the Legal Aid Society in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
2. After a waiver of jury trial was duly executed by petitioner and submitted by his attorney, the case was tried before me without a jury. No request for findings was made; petitioner was found guilty after trial on both counts.
3. On May 25, 1965, petitioner appeared for sentence, still represented by the same attorney, who asked the court to sentence petitioner under the youth offender statute, 18 U.S.C. § 5010(b). Counsel stated that he had explained to petitioner that under § 5010(b), Felder would be subject to an indeterminate sentence; and that petitioner's release date would be determined largely by his own adjustment. Felder said that he understood there would be a possible six-year maximum sentence but that, on the other hand, he might be discharged earlier. Counsel stated that it was petitioner's "own personal application." The court also asked Felder if he understood the method of sentencing as a youthful offender and petitioner answered "Yes," and asked the court to sentence him as a youth offender. Felder was then sentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 5010(b). He also said to the court: "I will appreciate it if you recommend KY [that is, Kentucky] for treatment." The court agreed. Petitioner stated that he had been an addict for three years.
4. At the sentencing the court did not mention the issue of appeal to petitioner.
5. The present proceeding was commenced on or about June 12, 1969, and the court asked Harry C. Batchelder, Jr., Esq., to represent petitioner without fee. Bernard Moldow, the former attorney for petitioner, now a Judge in the Criminal Court of the City of New York, testified (1) that he discussed with Felder the question of sentence before it was imposed; (2) that prior to sentencing he informed the petitioner of his right to appeal (the attorney also noted that "I was with Legal Aid for 22 years and I never lost a case where I did not tell the defendant he had a right to appeal");
(3) that he advised petitioner that petitioner could take an appeal without expense; and (4) that Felder told him that he did not want to appeal.
Although petitioner testified that he was not notified by his attorney of any right to appeal, and that he first learned of his right to appeal "about nine or ten months ago," I believe the testimony of his former attorney, as set forth above.
6. Petitioner understood prior to the expiration of his time to appeal that he could appeal and that any appeal could be taken without cost to himself.
7. Under the circumstances, I find that petitioner waived his right to appeal.
Rule 32(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure became effective July 1, 1966. It reads in ...