Charles Cecil Ford v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Charles Cecil Ford v. United States

363 F.2d 437, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5680

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 27, 1966

Docket22905_1

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 363 F.2d 437 (Charles Cecil Ford 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

Charles Cecil Ford v. United States, 363 F.2d 437, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5680 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On March 23, 1962, Charles Cecil Ford was sentenced by the district court on a plea of guilty to serve eight years for violation of the Bank Robbery Statute appearing as 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a). On August 25, 1964, Ford filed a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate the judgment on the ground that he was not guilty of this offense and that his plea was not voluntary but was induced by fear of a sentence under a state charge then pending in view of his criminal record. The Court dismissed the motion without a hearing and that judgment was reversed by this Court in Ford v. United States, 342 F.2d 994. Ford was subsequently brought before the Court for a full development of all of the facts and circumstances surrounding his plea of guilty to this charge. The trial court thus found from the evidence that the motion was without merit and dismissed it. Ford may not now re-litigate his guilt or innocence under this motion or have it serve as a substitute for a direct appeal in this case. Hornbrook v. United States of America, (5CA) 216 F.2d 112; Desmond v. United States of America, (1CA) 333 F.2d 378.

Next, Ford complains that the trial court erred in refusing to appoint an attorney to represent him on this 2255 motion. That question is committed solely to the sound discretion of the trial judge. He had no vested right under *438 the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to appointed counsel in this proceeding. Juelich v. United States of America, (5CA) 342 F.2d 29; Ellis v. United States of America, (7CA) 313 F.2d 848; McCartney v. United States of America, (7CA) 311 F.2d 475; United States of America v. Keller, (3CA) 284 F.2d 800; Richardson v. United States of America, (10CA) 199 F.2d 333; Crowe v. United States, (4CA) 175 F.2d 799; Criminal Justice Act of 1964, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.

There is no error in the judgment of the trial court in this case and its judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

On March 23, 1962, Charles Cecil Ford was sentenced by the district court on a plea of guilty to serve eight years for violation of the Bank Robbery Statute appearing as 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a). On August 25, 1964, Ford filed a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate the judgment on the ground that he was not guilty of this offense and that his plea was not voluntary but was induced by fear of a sentence under a state charge then pending in view of his criminal record. The Court dismissed the motion without a hearing and that judgment was reversed by this Court in Ford v. United States, 342 F.2d 994. Ford was subsequently brought before the Court for a full development of all of the facts and circumstances surrounding his plea of guilty to this charge. The trial court thus found from the evidence that the motion was without merit and dismissed it. Ford may not now re-litigate his guilt or innocence under this motion or have it serve as a substitute for a direct appeal in this case. Hornbrook v. United States of America, (5CA) 216 F.2d 112; Desmond v. United States of America, (1CA) 333 F.2d 378.

Next, Ford complains that the trial court erred in refusing to appoint an attorney to represent him on this 2255 motion. That question is committed solely to the sound discretion of the trial judge. He had no vested right under *438 the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to appointed counsel in this proceeding. Juelich v. United States of America, (5CA) 342 F.2d 29; Ellis v. United States of America, (7CA) 313 F.2d 848; McCartney v. United States of America, (7CA) 311 F.2d 475; United States of America v. Keller, (3CA) 284 F.2d 800; Richardson v. United States of America, (10CA) 199 F.2d 333; Crowe v. United States, (4CA) 175 F.2d 799; Criminal Justice Act of 1964, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.

There is no error in the judgment of the trial court in this case and its judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

363 F.2d 437, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-cecil-ford-v-united-states-ca5-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack