Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

456 F.2d 1289

Docket No. 71-1747.

Beard v. United States

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided March 23, 1972.

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1972-03-23

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently October 2015

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on United State v. Morgan · United States v. Etheridge

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1972-03-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1William Eugene Beard, in pro. per.

¶2Charles H. Anderson, U. S. Atty., Fred D. Thompson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Nashville, Tenn., for appellee on brief.

¶3Before McCREE and KENT, Circuit Judges, and McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5We consider an appeal from the denial of a writ of error coram nobis. See United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed 248 (1954). Appellant is currently incarcerated in a penal institution of the State of Tennessee, but he is subject to concurrent federal sentences of 5, 10, and 50 years imposed after his convictions of conspiracy, receiving and concealing proceeds of bank robberies, and murder. The petition points out that appellant’s defense attorney had conflicting interests because he represented one of appellant’s co-indictees, John W. Lee-man, who testified for the government at appellant’s trial.

¶6The District Court reviewed the trial record, which reveals that the issues presented by this petition were fully explored at trial, and found no prejudice. We have considered the record and the opinion of this court in United States v. Etheridge, 424 F.2d 951 (6th Cir. 1970), and we determine that the District Court’s holding that there was no denial of the effective assistance of counsel is correct. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is hereby affirmed.

/456/f2d/1289 · .json · Public domain