Connie Wilkins v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Connie Wilkins v. United States

262 F.2d 226

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 23, 1959

Docket14672_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 262 F.2d 226 (Connie Wilkins 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.

Bluebook

Connie Wilkins v. United States, 262 F.2d 226 (D.C. Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging that the prosecution knowingly used perjured testimony, that appellant did not have effective assistance of counsel, and that the trial judge lost jurisdiction to proceed to judgment because of erroneous rulings. The District Court held that the files and records in the case conclusively showed that the defendant was entitled to no re *227 lief, and that certain of the claimed errors could only be raised by direct appeal. *

On the materials before us, we find no error affecting substantial rights. Cf. Wilkins v. United States, 1955, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 66, 228 F.2d 37.

Affirmed.

*

As to the alleged use of perjured testimony, the record showed, at most, inconsistencies in the testimony in question.

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 filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging that the prosecution knowingly used perjured testimony, that appellant did not have effective assistance of counsel, and that the trial judge lost jurisdiction to proceed to judgment because of erroneous rulings. The District Court held that the files and records in the case conclusively showed that the defendant was entitled to no re *227 lief, and that certain of the claimed errors could only be raised by direct appeal. *

On the materials before us, we find no error affecting substantial rights. Cf. Wilkins v. United States, 1955, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 66, 228 F.2d 37.

Affirmed.

*

As to the alleged use of perjured testimony, the record showed, at most, inconsistencies in the testimony in question.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 F.2d 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connie-wilkins-v-united-states-cadc-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack