Archie Frank Ragavage v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Archie Frank Ragavage v. United States

272 F.2d 196

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 22, 1960

Docket17806_1

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 272 F.2d 196 (Archie Frank Ragavage v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Archie Frank Ragavage v. United States, 272 F.2d 196 (5th Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a denial after a hearing of a motion to vacate, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, a conviction for kidnapping, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1201, in which a plea of guilty was entered. In connection with the claim that the circumstances of his detention violated the Mc-Nabb principle (McNabb v. United States, 1943, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819), we think there is adequate support for the District Court’s finding implicit in the denial of the Section 2255 motion that the detention was state and not federal detention. See Papworth v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 256 F.2d 125; Brown v. United States, 5 Cir., 1955, 228 F.2d 286, 289. Further, the circumstances of his removal from Alabama to Mississippi, whether forcible as contended by him or the result of waiver of extradition as found by the District Court, are of no avail to petitioner. Frisbie v. Collins, 1952, 342 U.S. 519, 72 S.Ct. 509, 96 L.Ed. 541. Finally, the record shows the most extreme patience of the District Judge in carefully explaining to the accused his right to counsel and an intelligent waiver of the right by the accused. See Adams v. United States, 1942, 317 U.S. 269, 275, 63 S.Ct. 236, 87 L.Ed. 268, 272-273.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a denial after a hearing of a motion to vacate, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, a conviction for kidnapping, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1201, in which a plea of guilty was entered. In connection with the claim that the circumstances of his detention violated the Mc-Nabb principle (McNabb v. United States, 1943, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819), we think there is adequate support for the District Court’s finding implicit in the denial of the Section 2255 motion that the detention was state and not federal detention. See Papworth v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 256 F.2d 125; Brown v. United States, 5 Cir., 1955, 228 F.2d 286, 289. Further, the circumstances of his removal from Alabama to Mississippi, whether forcible as contended by him or the result of waiver of extradition as found by the District Court, are of no avail to petitioner. Frisbie v. Collins, 1952, 342 U.S. 519, 72 S.Ct. 509, 96 L.Ed. 541. Finally, the record shows the most extreme patience of the District Judge in carefully explaining to the accused his right to counsel and an intelligent waiver of the right by the accused. See Adams v. United States, 1942, 317 U.S. 269, 275, 63 S.Ct. 236, 87 L.Ed. 268, 272-273.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 F.2d 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/archie-frank-ragavage-v-united-states-ca5-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack