JUNIUS LEE MASON, 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 was not entitled to relief, either as a belated direct appeal or from the denial of his motion to vacate sentence.
Appellant was convicted of manslaughter after a jury trial and sentenced. He filed a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which was denie…
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 Belated Direct Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was charged with second degree murder. After trial by jury he was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced by the District Court to a term of imprisonment. He filed a timely application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, which was denied by the District Court. After filing a number of other motions in the District Court, he filed a motion to vacate sentence, under Section 2255 of Title 28 of the United States Code. This court granted him leave to appeal from the denial of this motion, and appointed counsel to assist him. Counsel so appointed urged reversal of the conviction, as well as vacation of the sentence.
Whether this case be considered as a belated direct appeal from the judgment of conviction, cf. Blunt v. United States, 1957, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 266, 244 F. 2d 355,1 or simply as an appeal from the order denying the motion under Section 2255, we must conclude that appellant is not entitled to relief. We have reviewed the entire record, and perceive no prejudicial error in the conduct of the trial, or in the denial of the motion under Section 2255. Compare Ramsour v. United States, 1960, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 49, 280 F. 2d 57.
Affirmed.
. We express no opinion as to whether on the facts here appellant is entitled to have his case so considered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Blunt v. United States, 244 F.2d 355 (D.C. Cir. 1957)
- Ramsour v. United States, 280 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1960)