Arthur Rookard v. United States
This text of 232 F.2d 378 (Arthur Rookard v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In 1938 a jury found Arthur Rookard guilty of robbery. Thereupon he pleaded guilty to three other similar charges and received consecutive sentences aggregating eight to twelve years. In July, 1942, he petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus alleging he had been inadequately represented by counsel. The writ was issued, counsel was appointed, and a hearing was had, after which the District Court found he was properly detained and discharged the writ.
In June, 1943, Rookard filed a second petition for habeas corptis. Ruled to show cause, the respondent’s return set forth the prior proceedings, whereupon the rule was discharged and the petition denied. On appeal we affirmed. Rookard v. Huff, 1944, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 291, 145 F.2d 708.
The appellant was conditionally released in December, 1945. A conviction of grand larceny in 1949 caused the conditional release to be revoked and he was required to complete his 1938 sentences after he had served the grand larceny sentence. In April, 1953, Rookard moved to vacate the 1938 sentences under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on substantially the same grounds he had alleged in the two habeas corpus proceedings. The motion was denied. A third petition for habeas corpus filed in October, 1954, was denied by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
December 9, 1954, appellant filed in each of the four cases a second motion under § 2255 to vacate the 1938 sentences. The present appeals from the denial of those motions are wholly without merit.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
232 F.2d 378, 98 U.S. App. D.C. 121, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-rookard-v-united-states-cadc-1956.