CLARENCE E. WATSON, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE

D.C. Cir. | 1960-05-12
No. 15544
281 F.2d 619 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (1960) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 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 was adequately represented by counsel and was fully apprised of his rights, thus his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was without merit.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was convicted of housebreaking, larceny, and rape, and his counsel advised him not to appeal. Appellant later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C.…

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 the denial, without hearing, of a motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The District Court found that the motion, files and records in the case conclusively showed that appellant was entitled to no relief, and the motion was thereupon denied.

The principal point raised on appeal, and that most stressed at the hearing, was that appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel in the respect following :

The record discloses that on March 23, 1954, after a trial lasting several days, appellant was convicted of the crimes of housebreaking, larceny and rape, and was duly sentenced. No appeal was taken. On June 8, 1959, over five years later, the motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was filed. By affidavit accompanying the motion, the ineffective assistance of counsel was alleged. This alleged ineffective assistance of counsel is said to lie in the fact that he advised, appellant to take no appeal, apparently being satisfied with the verdict, which did not carry with it in the rape case (as it could have done) the death penalty.1

We think appellant was fully advised of his right to appeal and followed the suggestion of his counsel that he not exercise that right. The record discloses that appellant was adequately represented by able, experienced and conscientious counsel, and that appellant was fully apprised of his rights. He cannot be heard at this time to complain.

We have, because of the seriousness of the crimes and the consequent severity of the punishment, carefully examined the other grounds urged for reversal and, as well, the transcript of testimony relied on. We are satisfied in any event that the appellant, appearing here through his own retained counsel, has presented no issue that is not plainly frivolous. Accordingly, the appeal in this case is dismissed. Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674, 78 S.Ct. 974, 2 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1958).

Dismissed as frivolous.

. § 22-2801 D.C.Code (1959).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw