Elmer M. Harris v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Elmer M. Harris v. United States

316 F.2d 229, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5526

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 19, 1963

Docket20402

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 316 F.2d 229 (Elmer M. Harris 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

Elmer M. Harris v. United States, 316 F.2d 229, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5526 (5th Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, moved to set aside a judgment of conviction entered on February 9, 1960. This judgment had been affirmed; Harris v. United States, 5 Cir., 1960, 285 F.2d 85, and certiorari denied, 368 U.S. 820, 82 S.Ct. 38, 7 L.Ed.2d 26. The motion was based on the proposition that appellant was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of his trial to the extent that he was not able to understand the charges against him, and was incompetent to assist counsel in his own defense.

The District Court, after a full hearing and with appellant present, denied the motion. The record amply sustains the findings of fact and conclusions of law embraced in the well reasoned opinion rendered in support of the order of denial. It follows that the judgment appealed from should be and is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, moved to set aside a judgment of conviction entered on February 9, 1960. This judgment had been affirmed; Harris v. United States, 5 Cir., 1960, 285 F.2d 85, and certiorari denied, 368 U.S. 820, 82 S.Ct. 38, 7 L.Ed.2d 26. The motion was based on the proposition that appellant was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of his trial to the extent that he was not able to understand the charges against him, and was incompetent to assist counsel in his own defense.

The District Court, after a full hearing and with appellant present, denied the motion. The record amply sustains the findings of fact and conclusions of law embraced in the well reasoned opinion rendered in support of the order of denial. It follows that the judgment appealed from should be and is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

316 F.2d 229, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elmer-m-harris-v-united-states-ca5-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack