UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
CHARLES FRED ROCHA, APPELLANT
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 contentions lacked merit and affirmed the district court's denial of his motion for relief.
Appellant, previously convicted and affirmed on direct appeal, sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The current appeal concerns the denial of that mo…
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 Retroactivity Of Supreme Court Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted in March, 1966 of having violated 21 U.S.C. § 174 and 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a) and on appeal to this court his conviction was affirmed. Rocha v. United States, 387 F. 2d 1019 (9th Cir. 1967). The only challenge to the conviction raised on appeal was that the trial court should have granted his pre-trial motion to suppress certain evidence.
The present appeal is from an Order . of the district court, made and filed on November 25, 1970, denying the motion of appellant for relief under and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The issues presented are: (1) Whether it was prejudicial error for Government counsel to comment upon inculpa-tory statements of the appellant during closing argument; (2) whether appellant is entitled to relief under the decision in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969); and (3) whether he was deprived of effective assistance of trial counsel.
After fully reviewing the record, we find and conclude that there is no merit to any of appellant’s contentions. Appellant cannot rely on the decision in Chimel, supra, for any relief since it cannot be applied retroactively. See: Williams v. United States, 91 S.Ct. 1148, 401 U.S. 646, 28 L.Ed. 388 (1971).
Furthermore, all of the issues presented on this appeal should have and could have been presented on the direct appeal from the judgment of conviction. In United States v. Marchese, 341 F. 2d 782, 789 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 817, 86 S.Ct. 41, 15 L.Ed.2d 64 (1965), this court stated:
“Section 2255 cannot take the place of an original appeal. More properly stated, § 2255 may not be invoked to relitigate questions which were or should have been raised on a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction.”
See also: Hammond v. United States, 408 F. 2d 481 (9th Cir. 1969).
We conclude that the decision of the district court should be, and hereby is, affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Howard v. Daggett, 526 F.2d 1388 (9th Cir. 1975)
-
Evans v. Mitchell, 458 F.2d 993 (9th Cir. 1972)
Authorities Cited
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969)
- Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 646 (U.S. 1971)
- United States & Preston Smith v. Marchese, 341 F.2d 782 (9th Cir. 1965)
- Tellier et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 382 U.S. 817 (U.S. 1965)
- Rocha v. United States, 387 F.2d 1019 (9th Cir. 1967)
- Earnest Hammond v. United States, 408 F.2d 481 (9th Cir. 1969)