Baldwin v. United States, 7684.
| Citation | 260 F.2d 117 |
| Decision Date | 13 October 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 7684.,7684. |
| Parties | John E. BALDWIN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
Charles W. Laughlin, Richmond, Va. (court-appointed counsel), for appellant.
John Edward Baldwin, pro se, on brief.
Arthur G. Howe, Asst. U. S. Atty., Charleston, S. C. (N. Welch Morrisette, Jr., U. S. Atty., Columbia, S. C., on brief), for appellee.
Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, HAYNSWORTH, Circuit Judge, and HARRY E. WATKINS, District Judge.
The defendant entered a plea of guilty upon an indictment which charged, among other things, a violation of Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113, in attempting to feloniously enter a bank, whose deposits were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, with the intention to commit a felony. Thereafter, he filed a motion under Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, to vacate the sentence, upon a number of grounds, which, after consideration, was denied. Judge Wyche filed an opinion which discloses his careful consideration of the defendant's contentions. Baldwin v. United States., D.C.E.D.S.C., 141 F. Supp. 310.
Approximately two years later, the defendant again moved under Title 28 U.S. C.A. § 2255 for an order vacating the sentence, this time complaining that he was not granted a hearing upon the first motion, challenging the accuracy of the stenographic transcript of the trial proceedings, questioning consideration by the Court of the return of the United States Attorney to the motion and of certain affidavits, and reasserting claimed jurisdictional objections urged in the first motion. The second motion received the consideration of the Court and was denied in an order dated April 14, 1958.
In this Court, the defendant urges principally his claimed jurisdictional objection, that the indictment does not allege a federal offense. Though the indictment is substantially in the language of Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113, the defendant reasons that it charges a crime under state law, which is the first contention advanced in his first motion under § 2255, Title 28 U.S.C.A., and in which we find no merit for the reasons stated by Judge Wyche. Baldwin v. United States, D.C. E.D.S.C., 141 F.Supp. 310.
The defendant's counsel, appointed by this Court to represent him in this proceeding, urged that the defendant was denied effective representation of counsel, for though a man of outstanding trial ability was appointed to represent him...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howard v. U.S.
...insufficient to establish a Sixth Amendment violation" (emphasis added). 515 F.2d at 875. Appellant contends that Baldwin v. United States, 4 Cir. 1958, 260 F.2d 117, is not in point but we disagree. In Baldwin the Fourth Circuit agreed with the district court that the issue of the sufficie......
-
United States v. Cavell, 13324.
...The Constitution\'s guarantee of assistance of counsel cannot be satisfied by mere formal appointment." And in Baldwin v. United States, 4 Cir., 1958, 260 F.2d 117, 118, certiorari denied 1959, 360 U.S. 938, 79 S.Ct. 1463, 3 L.Ed.2d 1550, the court "* * * What may be a reasonable time in on......
-
Rastrom v. Robbins
...v. Maroney, supra; United States ex rel. Mathis v. Rundle, supra; Dawson v. Peyton, 359 F.2d 149 (4th Cir.1966); Baldwin v. United States, 260 F.2d 117 (4th Cir.1958); Channell v. Coiner, 297 F.Supp. 1005 (N.D.W.Va. 1969). These cases, however, stand for no more than the proposition that wh......
-
State v. Hardy
...The court in Mundell succinctly summarized the applicable law as follows (pages 93-94, 223 A.2d page 186): '* * * In Baldwin v. United States, 260 F.2d 117 (4th Cir. 1958), cert. den. 360 U.S. 938, 79 S.Ct. 1463, 3 L.Ed.2d 1550 (1959), where the attorney had six hours to interview the witne......