Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

290 F.2d 822

Docket No. 14388.

Hutton v. United States

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided June 2, 1961.

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1961-06-02

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 1961

2 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1961-06-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Paul T. Hutton, in pro. per.

¶2John W. Morgan, U. S. Atty., Lexington, Ky., Jean L. Auxier, U. S. Atty., Lexington, Ky., on brief, for appellee.

¶3Before McALLISTER, CECIL and WEICK, Circuit Judges.

¶4ORDER.

¶5The above cause coming on to be heard on appellant’s petition, filed pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, to vacate sentences imposed for violations of Title 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 371 and 472, and it appearing that appellant was represented in the District Court by a reputable lawyer of his own choosing and pleaded guilty to all counts of the indictment, and upon appellant’s claim that the charges in the various counts were duplicitous; that appellant was without real benefit of the assistance of counsel; and that appellant pleaded guilty because coerced and intimidated by his own counsel and appellant having contended that he was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his sentences; and it appearing that the charges under the indictment were not duplicitous; that appellant was not denied assistance of counsel; that his plea was not brought about by coercion and intimidation of his own counsel; and that he is not entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate, and the court being duly advised,

¶6Now, therefore, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the order of the District Court denying appellant’s motion to vacate, be, and is hereby, affirmed.

/290/f2d/822 · .json · Public domain