Mitchell v. United States, 14173.
| Decision Date | 10 April 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 14173.,14173. |
| Citation | 103 US App. DC 97,254 F.2d 954 |
| Parties | John S. MITCHELL, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Martin J. McNamara, Jr., Washington, D. C. (appointed by the District Court) for appellant.
Mr. Walter J. Bonner, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Lewis Carroll and Alexander L. Stevas, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before REED, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, retired,* EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and FAHY, Circuit Judge.
The defendant did not appeal from a conviction and sentence under the narcotics laws. It is now too late to do so. He now appeals from denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence.
His present counsel, appointed by the District Court, contends that because trial counsel did not appeal, trial counsel did not give the defendant the "effective assistance" to which he was entitled. The defendant says his trial counsel refused to appeal because the defendant could not pay him a fee. But such a refusal, in the circumstances of this case, is not a ground for vacating the sentence.
It has been said that "failure to appeal may not be excused upon a mere showing of neglect of counsel." Dennis v. United States, 4 Cir., 177 F.2d 195. Perhaps that statement is too broad. We need not now decide whether failure to appeal would be a denial of effective assistance, and would open a conviction to "collateral attack" under § 2255, if there were plain reversible error in the trial. There was no such plain error in this trial.
Affirmed.
* Sitting by designation, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. Section 294(a).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Coe
...upon a mere showing of neglect of counsel.' Dennis v. United States, 4 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 195; Mitchell v. United States, 1958, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 97, 254 F.2d 954 (Justice Reed joining); United States v. Edwards, D.C.D.C.1957, 152 F.Supp. 179. 'Assuming arguendo that Peabody was deprived o......
-
Nelson v. State, s. 1260 and 1263
...question collaterally; there must be a clear showing of a plain reversible error in the trial proceedings. Mitchell v. United States, 1958, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 97, 254 F.2d 954, on a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, 'His present counsel, appointed by the District Court, contends that because tri......
-
Rivera v. United States
...F.2d 347, 353 (4th Cir. 1963); see also Glouser v. United States, 296 F.2d 853, 856-857 (8th Cir. 1961); Mitchell v. United States, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 97, 254 F.2d 954 (D.C.Cir. 1958), we do not consider the adequacy of this additional allegation here since it was not presented to, nor consid......
-
Maness v. Swenson
...error in the trial.\' Wilson v. United States, 9 Cir., 338 F.2d 54; Dodd v. United States, 9 Cir., 321 F.2d 240; Mitchell v. United States, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 97, 254 F.2d 954 (Cert. denied 371 U.S. 838, 83 S.Ct. 64, 9 LEd.2d 73)." It should be noted that there is no transcript of the origina......