STIMPSON

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Cephus Donald Dyer v. Crisp, 613 F.2d 275 (10th Cir. 1980)
  …w the Tenth Circuit, have followed the “sham and mockery” test. Rickenbacker v. Warden, 550 F. 2d 62; 65 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 826, 98 S.Ct. 103, 54 L.Ed.2d 85 (1977); Gillihan v. Rodriguez, 551 F. 2d 1182 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 845, 98 S.Ct. 148, 54 L.Ed.2d 111 (1977). The Tenth Circuit has articulated the standard as follows: This circuit adheres to the well established principle that relief from a final conviction on the ground of incompetent or ineffective counsel will be…
• Garland Rex Brinlee, Jr. v. Crisp, 608 F.2d 839 (10th Cir. 1979)
  …uld be asked. (I R. 1435). It is well established that state court trial errors not involving a violation of federal constitutional rights are not cognizable in a federal habeas case. Gillihan v. Rodriguez, 551 F. 2d 1182 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 845, 98 S.Ct. 148, 54 L.Ed.2d 111. We feel that the remarks complained of do not involve such federal constitutional problems. However one claim which requires some discussion is the assertion concerning the lack of a record showing of defendant’s prese…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• United States v. Fitzgibbon, 619 F.2d 874 (10th Cir. 1980)
  …ofore written, we hold that Fitzgibbon’s trial counsel afforded him adequate, effective, competent representation under any recognized standard. See: Gillihan v. Rodriquez, 551 F. 2d 1182 (10th Cir. 1977) (the “sham and mockery” test), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 845, 98 S.Ct. 148, 54 L.Ed.2d 111 (1977); Dyer v. Crisp, 613 F. 2d 275 (10th Cir. 1980— En Banc) (exercise of “skill, judgment and diligence” of reasonably competent defense attorney). WE AFFIRM.…