Johnson v. United States

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Dec. 3, 1964.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1964-12-03

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently August 1966

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The appellant challenges the denial of his motion made pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C.A., § 2255 . In considering the motion, the court appointed competent counsel to represent the appellant and held a pretrial conference. Thereafter, appointed counsel and the court made an investigation of the files and records. Counsel advised the court that it was his considered opinion, after thorough investigation, that an evidentiary hearing on the motion would serve no useful purpose. Based upon recommendations of counsel and its own examination of such files and records, the trial court concluded that there was no merit in the contentions of the appellant. We agree with the conclusions reached.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including 258 F. Supp. 175 - Jackson v. United States

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

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1964-12-03

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Gerald Ray Johnson, pro se.

¶2Robert B. Ward, Asst. U. S. Atty.,. Barefoot Sanders, U. S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., for appellee.

¶3Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and. BROWN and GEWIN, Circuit Judges..

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5The appellant challenges the denial of his motion made pursuant to Title 28 U. S.C.A. § 2255. In considering the motion, the court appointed competent counsel to represent the appellant and held’ *30a pretrial conference. Thereafter, appointed counsel and the court made an investigation of the files and records. Counsel advised the court that it was his considered opinion, after thorough investigation, that an evidentiary hearing on the motion would serve no useful purpose. Based upon recommendations of counsel and its own examination of such files and records, the trial court concluded that there was no merit in the contentions of the appellant. We agree with the conclusions reached.

¶6The judgment is affirmed.