Edward G. Corella v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Edward G. Corella v. United States

455 F.2d 1381, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10393

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 30, 1972

Docket71-2617

StatusPublished

This text of 455 F.2d 1381 (Edward G. Corella v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edward G. Corella v. United States, 455 F.2d 1381, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10393 (9th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Corella brought this proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to set aside his conviction and subsequent probation revocation. The district court, after holding an evidentiary hearing, determined the factual issues against Corella and, accordingly, entered an order denying the claim. Corella appeals.

We hold that the Government sustained its burden of proving that Corella waived his right to counsel, appointed or retained, at the 1955 and 1959 court appearances despite his testimony to the contrary. Likewise, we conclude, the Government met its burden of proving that Corella understood the consequences of his plea. See Yesterday v. United States, 442 F.2d 1020 (9th Cir. 1971). His argument that the trial court was under a misapprehension as to its powers when it imposed the previously suspended sentence is not supported by the *1382 record. The claim that there was an undue delay in executing the probation revocation warrant is not well taken. See United States v. Bartholdi, 453 F.2d 1225 (9th Cir. 1972).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Corella brought this proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to set aside his conviction and subsequent probation revocation. The district court, after holding an evidentiary hearing, determined the factual issues against Corella and, accordingly, entered an order denying the claim. Corella appeals.

We hold that the Government sustained its burden of proving that Corella waived his right to counsel, appointed or retained, at the 1955 and 1959 court appearances despite his testimony to the contrary. Likewise, we conclude, the Government met its burden of proving that Corella understood the consequences of his plea. See Yesterday v. United States, 442 F.2d 1020 (9th Cir. 1971). His argument that the trial court was under a misapprehension as to its powers when it imposed the previously suspended sentence is not supported by the *1382 record. The claim that there was an undue delay in executing the probation revocation warrant is not well taken. See United States v. Bartholdi, 453 F.2d 1225 (9th Cir. 1972).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

455 F.2d 1381, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edward-g-corella-v-united-states-ca9-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack