United States ex rel. Bronzell v. Rundle, No. 17579.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 410 F.2d 371 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Curtis BRONZELL, Appellant, v. Alfred T. RUNDLE. |
| Docket Number | No. 17579. |
| Decision Date | 23 April 1969 |
410 F.2d 371 (1969)
UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Curtis BRONZELL, Appellant,
v.
Alfred T. RUNDLE.
No. 17579.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Submitted on Briefs April 7, 1969.
Decided April 23, 1969.
Curtis Bronzell, pro se.
Roger F. Cox, Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa. (Joseph J. Musto, Asst. Dist. Atty., James D. Crawford, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Division, Richard A. Sprague, First Asst. Dist. Atty., Arlen Specter, Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before KALODNER, GANEY and VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
This appeal challenges a District Court order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by relator, after exhaustion of state remedies.1 After a jury trial, relator was found guilty of three separate offenses and aggravated robbery, assault and battery, and carrying concealed deadly weapon. On May 29, 1962, he was sentenced to three concurrent terms of seven and one-half to fifteen years.
CLAIM OF DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS IN BEING FORCED TO TRIAL WITH UNPREPARED COUNSEL.
Relator consulted with his trial counsel, an experienced attorney on the staff of the Defender Association, as early as February 28, 1962. Although there was some indication that he intended to secure private trial counsel between February 28 and arraignment on April 11, it is clear that the above-mentioned attorney represented relator and his two co-defendants from April 11 through the sentencing proceedings on May 29. On April 11, the case was listed for trial on April 25, on which date it was continued for trial until May 16. On that date, relator's attorney requested a continuance in order to make "further investigation," which request was denied after the court pointed out that the witnesses had appeared at least three times in connection with this prosecution. Since counsel did not request a continuance to enable him to produce Mr. Baxter's (a victim) customer, who Baxter said "could have seen the defendant but she was afraid," a new trial should not be granted to enable the relator to call a witness who, at most, could have corroborated the testimony of Baxter and was probably too afraid to make any positive identification. Defense counsel's cross-examination of the Commonwealth witnesses showed his familiarity with the case.
In Sykes v. Commonwealth of Virginia, ex rel. Peyton, 364 F.2d 314, 316 (4th Cir. 1966), the court said:
"* * * Every lawyer on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States ex rel. Ford v. State of New Jersey, Civ. No. 75-198.
...v. Myers, 327 F.2d 174, 181-182 (3d Cir. 1964); United States ex rel. Branzell v. Rundle, 294 F. Supp. 1338, 1339 (E.D.Pa.1968), aff'd 410 F.2d 371 (3d Cir. Here, defense counsel had three days in which to prepare to meet Adams' testimony. A further continuance for that purpose does not app......
-
Hodge v. Hodge, 74-1376
...professional commitments. United States v. DiStefano, 464 F.2d 845, 846 n. 1 (2d Cir. 1972); United States ex rel. Bronzell v. Rundle,410 F.2d 371, 372 (3d Cir. The Supreme Court of the United States, in Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 84 S.Ct. 841, 11 L.Ed.2d 921 (1964), considered a clai......
-
Hodge v. Hodge, 74-1376
...attorney's other professional commitments. United States v. DiStefano, 464 F.2d 845, 846 n. 1 (2d Cir. 1972); United States v. Fields, 410 F.2d 371, 372 (3d Cir. 1969). The Supreme Court of the United States, in Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (1964), considered a claim that denial of a mot......
-
WILLIAMS, III v. United States, 17571.
...U.S.C.A. § 2255 which is premised on the contention that Williams' written waiver of prosecution by indictment and consent to proceed by 410 F.2d 371 Information was not executed with a full understanding of the nature of the charges and of his rights. It must immediately be noted that Will......