UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
FARRIS EGBERT MORRIS, ALIAS BUCK WILKINS, APPELLANT

3d Cir. | 1960-05-24
No. 13188
277 F.2d 927 United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1960) Negative Treatment
Cited by 8 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that the appellant failed to prove any basis in law or fact for vacating his sentence.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was convicted, sentenced, and confined. He filed a motion to vacate the sentence, alleging constitutional violations and misconduct by his o…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying the appellant’s motion to vacate a sentence imposed upon him on September 29, 1954. The appellant had been convicted upon trial in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sentenced and confined to a federal penitentiary. He brought this action to vacate the sentence alleging grounds which, if proved, would have perhaps constituted an invasion of his constitutional rights. He also made serious charges about the conduct of the original trial in the hands of Herman Pollock, Esquire, for many years head of the Voluntary Defender Association in the City of Philadelphia.1 Judge Clary, before whom the matter was brought, appointed Jacob Kossman, Esquire, of the Philadelphia Bar, to represent the appellant in the proceeding and had the prisoner brought back from his place of confinement with every opportunity to> testify on his own behalf.

At the conclusion of the hearing Judge Clary wrote a painstakingly careful opinion analyzing both the facts and the law applicable to the case. He concluded that the appellant had proved no basis in law or fact for the relief he sought. D.C.E.D.Pa.1959, 178 F.Supp. 694.

We can add nothing to the thorough consideration of this case by Judge Clary.

The decision of the district court will be affirmed.

. For a study of the organization and operations of the Defender Association see Note, Legal Aid to Indigent Criminal Defendants in Philadelphia and New Jersey, 107 U.Pa.L.Rev. 812, 836-43, 851-54 (1959).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw