301 F.2d 102 (10th Cir. 1962), 6855, Frand v. United States
| Citation | 301 F.2d 102 |
| Party Name | Bernard Herman FRAND, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Case Date | March 05, 1962 |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals, U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Page 102
Richard P. Cullen, Denver, Colo., for appellant.
Robert M. Green, Asst. U.S. Atty., for appellee.
Before BRATTON, HUXMAN and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.
BRATTON, Circuit Judge.
An indictment was returned in the United States Court for Kansas charging Bernard H. Frand and Byron Leslie McCabe with the offense of transporting in interstate commence a stolen automobile knowing it to have been stolen. Both of the accused were found guilty and each was sentenced to imprisonment. No appeal was taken. Frand filed a motion
Page 103
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate the judgment and sentence imposed upon him. The motion was denied without a hearing. On appeal, the order denying the motion was reversed and the proceeding was remanded with directions to grant a hearing at which Frand might appear and testify. Frand v. United States, 10 Cir., 289 F.2d 693. The hearing thus ordered was had, at which Frand was present but did not testify and did not adduce any evidence. The record indicates that a transcript of the proceedings at the trial of the criminal case was before the court and it is now part of the record on appeal. The motion was denied, and the proceeding is here on appeal from the order of denial.
The single attack upon the order denying the motion is that Frand was deprived of his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel at the trial of the criminal case. It is argued that the court appointed attorney who represented Frand and McCabe at the trial of the criminal case was so incompetent that Frand was deprived of his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. This is not an appeal from the judgment and sentence imposed upon Frand in which conventional errors occurring during the trial would be open to review. It is an attack upon the judgment and sentence by motion under 2255. The statute provides in express language that the grounds of attack which may be presented by motion under its terms are that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States; that the court was without jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or that the sentence is otherwise open to collateral attack. Lack of effective assistance of counsel in the trial of a criminal case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reliability matters: reassociating Bagley materiality, Strickland prejudice, and cumulative harmless error.
...Williams v. Beto, 354 F.2d 698, 704 (5th Cir. 1966); Scott v. United States, 334 F.2d 72, 72 (6th Cir. 1964); Frand v. United States, 301 F.2d 102, 103 (10th Cir. 1962); United States ex rel. Darcy v. Handy, 203 F.2d 407, 427 (3d Cir. 1959); Newsome v. Smyth, 261 F.2d 452, 454 (4th Cir. 195......