Charles D. Nelson v. Crispus C. Nix

Eighth Circuit

Charles D. Nelson v. Crispus C. Nix

53 F.3d 335, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24292

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedApril 28, 1995

Docket94-3154

StatusPublished

This text of 53 F.3d 335 (Charles D. Nelson v. Crispus C. Nix) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Charles D. Nelson v. Crispus C. Nix, 53 F.3d 335, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24292 (8th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

53 F.3d 335
NOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions and provides that no party may cite an opinion not intended for publication unless the cases are related by identity between the parties or the causes of action.

Charles D. NELSON, Appellant,
v.
Crispus C. NIX, Appellee.

No. 94-3154SI

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Apr. 12, 1995
Filed: Apr. 28, 1995

Before FAGG and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS,* District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Charles D. Nelson appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 habeas petition. Nelson contends the district court applied the wrong legal standard in deciding whether a confession Nelson made to a jail house informant was obtained in violation of Nelson's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to the effective assistance of counsel. We have carefully considered the issue and conclude the district court applied the correct legal standard and properly denied Nelson's petition. We thus affirm without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

*

The HONORABLE MICHAEL J. DAVIS, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation

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

53 F.3d 335
NOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions and provides that no party may cite an opinion not intended for publication unless the cases are related by identity between the parties or the causes of action.

Charles D. NELSON, Appellant,
v.
Crispus C. NIX, Appellee.

No. 94-3154SI

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Apr. 12, 1995
Filed: Apr. 28, 1995

Before FAGG and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS,* District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Charles D. Nelson appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 habeas petition. Nelson contends the district court applied the wrong legal standard in deciding whether a confession Nelson made to a jail house informant was obtained in violation of Nelson's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to the effective assistance of counsel. We have carefully considered the issue and conclude the district court applied the correct legal standard and properly denied Nelson's petition. We thus affirm without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

*

The HONORABLE MICHAEL J. DAVIS, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 F.3d 335, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-d-nelson-v-crispus-c-nix-ca8-1995.