JOSEPH JOHN CUFF, 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's claims of denial of counsel and an inadmissible confession were groundless.
The appellant filed a Section 2255 motion alleging he was forced to plead without counsel and that a confession was obtained improperly. The district …
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 Admissibility Of Confessions cases and more on FLexlaw
HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is from an order denying a Section 2255 motion. The appellant in his brief charges many and serious infractions of the law, the most important of which are that he was made to plead without the aid and advice of counsel and that a confession was obtained from him under circumstances rendering it inadmissible.
As the district judge in his memorandum opinion,1 which the record fully supports, points out, there is nothing of substance in his claims. As to his not having counsel, the defendant was advised of his right to counsel and that one-would be appointed for him if he had none, and the defendant deliberately declined to have counsel appointed. He then pleaded guilty and there was no trial. No confession was offered in evidence against him.2
The district judge, in his memorandum opinion, note 1, supra, fully and' correctly stated what occurred, and it is-absolutely clear that the claims of appellant for the relief sought are wholly groundless.
The judgment is
Affirmed.
. United States v. Cuff, 211 F.Supp. 680.
. Bistram v. United States, 8 Cir., 253 F. 2d 610; Hall v. United States, 8 Cir., 259 F. 2d 430; Edwards v. United States, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 152, 256 F. 2d 707; Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479; Newalk v. United States, 5 Cir., 254 F. 2d 869.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 174 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
-
Putt v. United States, 392 F.2d 64 (5th Cir. 1968)
-
Frye v. United States, 411 F.2d 562 (5th Cir. 1969)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (U.S. 1957)
- Alphonzo Edwards v. United States, 256 F.2d 707 (D.C. Cir. 1958)
- Hall v. United States, 259 F.2d 430 (8th Cir. 1958)
- Bistram v. United States, 253 F.2d 610 (8th Cir. 1958)
- Newalk v. United States, 254 F.2d 869 (5th Cir. 1958)