UNITED STATES EX REL. JOHN TIERNEY, RELATOR-APPELLANT,
v.
MARK S. RICHMOND, WARDEN, CONNECTICUT STATE PRISON, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
The transcript of the state court hearing bears out the statements in Judge Smith's reasoned memorandum that the relator was notified of the charge under the habitual criminal statute, Conn.Gen. Stat. § 8820 (1949), in all respects in accordance with the practice set forth in § 340, Conn. Practice Book of 1951, and accepted by us as due process in United States ex rel. Plue v. Cummings, 2 Cir., 224 F. 2d 276. Relator was fully represented by competent counsel and there is nothing to suggest any “coercion” beyond what is inherent in the charges which the second oifender statute authorizes. We do not understand that we are required to appoint counsel to stultify themselves by pressing hopeless appeals.
The motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479 (9th Cir. 1958)
-
United States ex rel. Willie Lowery v. Murphy, 245 F.2d 751 (2d Cir. 1957)
-
United States v. Ballentine, 245 F.2d 223 (2d Cir. 1957)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States ex rel. Arnold Plue v. Cummings, 224 F.2d 276 (2d Cir. 1955)