THOMAS J. MCHALE, 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 the appellant received effective assistance of counsel and that his conviction was not a denial of due process.
Appellant was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon and carrying a dangerous weapon after a jury trial. He claimed ineffective assistance of hi…
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 Youth Corrections Act cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHER, Circuit Judge.
Appellant, after a jury trial, was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon and of carrying a dangerous weapon. On appeal he charges his court-appointed trial counsel with such ineffective assistance that his conviction is tantamount to a denial of due process.
After a prolonged period of examination at St. Elizabeths Hospital, it was certified to the District Court that appellant was competent to stand trial. No defense was interposed of insanity as of the time of the alleged offense. Taking the stand in his own behalf the appellant testified fully as to the affray in which the victim received several stab wounds. After the jury’s verdict had been received court-appointed counsel withdrew and present counsel entered his appearance for the appellant. Upon present counsel’s oral motion, the District Court again ordered a mental examination by two court-appointed psychiatrists. They certified that the appellant was not psychotic. The court was advised that appellant “is a very rebellious young man” who is “an excellent candidate for rehabilitation * * * under the Youth Corrections Act.” The District Court accepted the recommendation and committed the appellant to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 5010(b).
We have carefully considered the entire record in the light of appellant’s claims. We find no error. Affirmed.