JOHN ALLEN KENDRICK, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a defendant who was absent from a jury view due to his retained counsel's strategic decision, and who made no effort to raise the issue at trial or on direct appeal, is not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Appellant was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. He later filed a motion to vacate sentence u…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fed. R. Crim. P. 43 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In 1956 appellant was convicted and sentenced for assault with a deadly weapon. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, Kendrick v. United States, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 173, 238 F. 2d 34 (1956). On motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed a year after the sentence, appellant raises for the first time the claim that he was denied the right to accompany the jury to view the premises where the crime took place. The District Court denied the motion after a hearing.
Whatever may be the nature of the right of an accused to be personally present during a view,1 the record discloses that appellant’s absence from the view was the decision of his retained counsel,2 as a matter of trial strategy, and that appellant made no effort at the trial or on the direct appeal to raise the point. Under the circumstances, we think that appellant was not entitled to relief under Section 2255. See Adams v. United States, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 354, 222 F. 2d 45 (1955); Martin v. United States, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 412, 248 F. 2d 651 (1957); Moore v. United States, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 412, 249 F. 2d 504 (1957).
Affirmed.
. See Fed.it.Crim.P. 43, 18 U.S.C., wiiicii states “The defendant shall be present * * * at every stage of the trial * * I!.” But cf. Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 54 S.Ct. 330, 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934), decided before the Federal Buies were promulgated.
. Trial counsel who was selected and engaged by appellant for his trial and prior appeal has been replaced by counsel appointed by the District Court to repre-ent him in the instant Section 2255 proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stein v. United States, 313 F.2d 518 (9th Cir. 1962)
-
Burley v. United States, 295 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1961)
-
United States v. Sparre, 339 F.2d 495 (4th Cir. 1964)
Authorities Cited
- Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1934)
- Adams v. United States, 222 F.2d 45 (D.C. Cir. 1955)
- Kendrick v. United States, 238 F.2d 34 (D.C. Cir. 1956)
- Martin v. United States, 248 F.2d 651 (D.C. Cir. 1957)
- Moore v. United States, 249 F.2d 504 (D.C. Cir. 1957)