HARRY JAMES LASTINGER, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE

5th Cir. | 1966-01-28
No. 22524
356 F.2d 104 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1966) Positive Treatment
Cited by 10 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 defendant's guilty plea was invalid because he was not properly advised of his right to appointed counsel.


Facts & Procedural History

The defendant pleaded guilty to two felonies and later moved to vacate his sentences, alleging he was never advised of his right to counsel. The recor…

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 appellant pleaded guilty to an information charging him with two felonies involving a United States Treasury check, Sections 1708 and 495 of Title 18, U.S.C.A. Eight months later he moved for vacation of sentences pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A., Section 2255. He alleged that “at no time, in either the pre-trial proceedings or in the trial itself, was Mov-ant either advised of his right to have counsel appointed for him by the Court or offered the assistance of legal counsel”. The District Court denied the motion for the reason that “the files and records of the case conclusively show the petitioner is entitled to no relief”. Appeal to this Court was allowed in forma pauperis.

An examination of the record reveals' that the following occurred in open court at the time this appellant waived indictment, waived venue, and pleaded guilty:

“Mr. Chadwick (Assistant U. S. Attorney). I will ask you if you have an attorney?

“The Defendant. No sir. “Mr. Chadwick. Do you want one ?

“The Defendant. No sir.”

This is all that was said on the subject. Appellant was not advised of his right to counsel. Neither was he informed that if he desired counsel and was unable to obtain it then the Court would provide it for him.

This failure invalidated the plea and all subsequent proceedings. Harvey v. State of Mississippi, 5 Cir., 1965, 340 F. 2d 263, 269. Davis v. Holman, 5 Cir., 1965, 773 F. 2d 354.

The sentences, therefore, must be vacated, and we do not reach the other questions raised by this appeal.

Reversed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw