Charles Lorin Gove v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Charles Lorin Gove v. United States

376 F.2d 346, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7025

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 22, 1967

Docket23893_1

StatusPublished

This text of 376 F.2d 346 (Charles Lorin Gove 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 Lorin Gove v. United States, 376 F.2d 346, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7025 (5th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 after an evidentiary hearing in the District Court.

Appellant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of violations of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a) and (d) (bank robbery) and was sentenced to serve a total of twenty-three years in the federal penitentiary.

Appellant, attacking his conviction, now asserts as his principal grounds for reversal (1) that his plea of guilty was coerced by his appointed counsel who allegedly rendered ineffective assistance to him, and (2) that the trial judge was personally biased against appellant having allegedly learned that the appellant had rented an apartment in a building next door to the Judge’s residence.

At the evidentiary hearing on the § 2255 motion before the same District Judge, the appellant, his appointed counsel, and two FBI agents testified.

Appointed counsel denied that he had advised appellant to plead guilty because of any alleged personal bias on the part of the Judge; on the contrary, he testified that he had not been aware of any bias, and that he had advised appellant to plead not guilty because it was his professional opinion that his case was a defensible one, but that appellant insisted upon pleading guilty to the charges.

The proof adduced upon the hearing amply justifies the conclusion that appellant’s plea of guilty was freely and understandingly entered after he had received effective assistance of counsel, and that he was convicted and sentenced by an impartial Judge. There was no proof that the trial Judge knew (in fact, the trial Judge stated affirmatively on the record that he did not know) that appellant lived in an apartment in a building next door to the Judge’s residence, or that he had ever seen appellant before his appearance in the courtroom. The judgment of the District Court is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 after an evidentiary hearing in the District Court.

Appellant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of violations of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a) and (d) (bank robbery) and was sentenced to serve a total of twenty-three years in the federal penitentiary.

Appellant, attacking his conviction, now asserts as his principal grounds for reversal (1) that his plea of guilty was coerced by his appointed counsel who allegedly rendered ineffective assistance to him, and (2) that the trial judge was personally biased against appellant having allegedly learned that the appellant had rented an apartment in a building next door to the Judge’s residence.

At the evidentiary hearing on the § 2255 motion before the same District Judge, the appellant, his appointed counsel, and two FBI agents testified.

Appointed counsel denied that he had advised appellant to plead guilty because of any alleged personal bias on the part of the Judge; on the contrary, he testified that he had not been aware of any bias, and that he had advised appellant to plead not guilty because it was his professional opinion that his case was a defensible one, but that appellant insisted upon pleading guilty to the charges.

The proof adduced upon the hearing amply justifies the conclusion that appellant’s plea of guilty was freely and understandingly entered after he had received effective assistance of counsel, and that he was convicted and sentenced by an impartial Judge. There was no proof that the trial Judge knew (in fact, the trial Judge stated affirmatively on the record that he did not know) that appellant lived in an apartment in a building next door to the Judge’s residence, or that he had ever seen appellant before his appearance in the courtroom. The judgment of the District Court is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

376 F.2d 346, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-lorin-gove-v-united-states-ca5-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack