Frank Joseph McCartney v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Frank Joseph McCartney v. United States

343 F.2d 471, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5983

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 7, 1965

Docket19672_1

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 343 F.2d 471 (Frank Joseph McCartney 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

Frank Joseph McCartney v. United States, 343 F.2d 471, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5983 (9th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

While it may be argued that appointment of counsel in a proceeding to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is discretionary with the United States District Court in a case such as the one before us, we do not need to direct our attention to that question here. The District Court in this case exercised its judgment and appointed counsel to represent the prisoner, McCartney. Having thus determined that counsel should have been appointed, the District Court should have taken steps to insure effective representation.

Counsel apparently misconceived his role. It was his duty to honorably present his client’s contentions in the light most favorable to his client. Instead he presumed to advise the court as to the validity and sufficiency of prisoner’s motion, by letter. We therefore conclude that prisoner had no effective assistance of counsel and remand this case to the District Court with instructions to set aside the judgment, appoint new counsel to represent the prisoner if he makes no objection thereto, and proceed anew.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

While it may be argued that appointment of counsel in a proceeding to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is discretionary with the United States District Court in a case such as the one before us, we do not need to direct our attention to that question here. The District Court in this case exercised its judgment and appointed counsel to represent the prisoner, McCartney. Having thus determined that counsel should have been appointed, the District Court should have taken steps to insure effective representation.

Counsel apparently misconceived his role. It was his duty to honorably present his client’s contentions in the light most favorable to his client. Instead he presumed to advise the court as to the validity and sufficiency of prisoner’s motion, by letter. We therefore conclude that prisoner had no effective assistance of counsel and remand this case to the District Court with instructions to set aside the judgment, appoint new counsel to represent the prisoner if he makes no objection thereto, and proceed anew.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

343 F.2d 471, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-joseph-mccartney-v-united-states-ca9-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack