Hester v. United States, 6816.
| Decision Date | 28 April 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 6816.,6816. |
| Citation | 303 F.2d 47 |
| Parties | Le Roy HESTER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Arnold D. Fagin, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.
Benjamin E. Franklin, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., was with him on the brief), for appellee.
Before LEWIS and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges, and RITTER, District Judge.
Appellant was convicted after trial by jury in the District of Kansas upon each of three counts of an indictment charging the unlawful trafficking in narcotics. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of ten years upon each count, such sentences to run concurrently. He now appeals and with the aid of appointed counsel urges error in the trial upon three grounds: insufficiency of the evidence to support conviction under Count 3 of the charge; error in the court's instructions; and lack of effective assistance of counsel at the trial.
No claim is made that a judgment of conviction upon Counts 1 and 2 is not amply supported by the evidence nor that the total sentence imposed is not proper under either of these counts. In such case an attack upon the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction under Count 3, even if warranted, cannot invalidate appellant's sentence nor result in relief granted. Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263, 49 S.Ct. 268, 73 L.Ed. 692; McMurray v. United States, 10 Cir., 298 F.2d 619.
Appellant's complaint relative to the court's instructions is based upon the contention that the evidence warranted an instruction upon the issue of entrapment. No such issue was claimed at the trial nor was objection made to the court's failure to instruct upon entrapment. We would not ordinarily consider the present claim when not properly premised in the record but are constrained to do so because of the companion claim of lack of adequate representation by trial counsel.
The crux of the government's case rested in the testimony of a "special employee" who was used by government narcotic agents to effectuate several purchases of heroin from appellant. The "special employee" in each instance was searched by a government agent, given fifteen dollars in marked money, allowed to make contact with appellant while under visual observation by regular agents, and was again searched after making such contact with appellant. Upon this second search the "special employee" was found to have obtained heroin and disposed of the money. He testified:
"I told him (appellant) that I would like to purchase some narcotics, and he said he thought it was possible, and I purchased three...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hopkinson v. State
...denied, 382 U.S. 964, 86 S.Ct. 452, 15 L.Ed.2d 367 (1965)."7 See Vess v. Peyton, 352 F.2d 325 (4th Cir.1965)."8 See Hester v. United States, 303 F.2d 47 (10th Cir.1962); People v. Rideaux, 61 Cal.2d 537, 393 P.2d 703, 39 Cal.Rptr. 391 (1964)."9 See O'Malley v. United States, 285 F.2d 733 (6......
-
Beasley v. United States
...v. United States, 104 U.S.App. D.C. 57, 259 F.2d 787, cert. denied, 358 U.S. 850, 79 S.Ct. 81, 3 L.Ed.2d 86 (1958); Hester v. United States, 303 F.2d 47 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 847, 83 S.Ct. 80, 9 L.Ed.2d 82 (1962); United States ex rel. Feeley v. Ragen, 166 F.2d 976 (7th Cir.19......
-
Commonwealth v. McGrogan
... ... 443, 85 S.Ct. 564, 13 ... L.Ed.2d 408 (1965), the United States Supreme Court ... acknowledged that the decision of whether to ... McKenzie, 409 F.2d ... 983 (2nd Cir. 1969); Hester v. United States, 303 F.2d 47 ... (10th Cir. 1962) (alternate holding) ... ...
-
Brooks v. State, G-64
...to secure an acquittal of a guilty person or to harass a court with unwarranted objections and motions. What we said in Hester v. United States, 10 Cir., 303 F.2d 47, 49, cert. denied 371 U.S. 847, 83 S.Ct. 80, 9 L.Ed.2d 82, is appropriate here: (Emphasis "* * * Neither vigor nor skill can ......