George James Cook v. United States

Fifth Circuit

George James Cook v. United States

549 F.2d 1001, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 14040

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 31, 1977

Docket76-2173

StatusPublished

This text of 549 F.2d 1001 (George James Cook 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

George James Cook v. United States, 549 F.2d 1001, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 14040 (5th Cir. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, George Cook, presently appeals to this Court from the order of the District Court for the Southern District of Texas denying, on remand, his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief.

In Cook v. United States, 521 F.2d 875 (5th Cir. 1975), we reversed the District Court for failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the issue of whether appellant’s pleas of guilty were vitiated by the alleged misleading advice of counsel.

Appellant contends that his court-appointed counsel misled him into believing that if he pled guilty to narcotics charges, then he, a narcotic addict, would have immediately begun service of his sentence at a federal narcotics treatment center rather than being returned to state authorities for trial on state charges. Cook contends that he was in the process of withdrawal from heroin addiction when his pleas were entered and that his reliance on the allegedly misleading advice rendered his pleas involuntary and the assistance of his counsel ineffective.

On remand, the District Court held an evidentiary hearing, and found that the pleas were voluntarily entered, and that appellant’s counsel rendered him effective assistance. Though there was conflicting evidence, we are of the opinion that the findings of the trial judge are not clearly erroneous.

Accordingly, 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:

Appellant, George Cook, presently appeals to this Court from the order of the District Court for the Southern District of Texas denying, on remand, his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief.

In Cook v. United States, 521 F.2d 875 (5th Cir. 1975), we reversed the District Court for failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the issue of whether appellant’s pleas of guilty were vitiated by the alleged misleading advice of counsel.

Appellant contends that his court-appointed counsel misled him into believing that if he pled guilty to narcotics charges, then he, a narcotic addict, would have immediately begun service of his sentence at a federal narcotics treatment center rather than being returned to state authorities for trial on state charges. Cook contends that he was in the process of withdrawal from heroin addiction when his pleas were entered and that his reliance on the allegedly misleading advice rendered his pleas involuntary and the assistance of his counsel ineffective.

On remand, the District Court held an evidentiary hearing, and found that the pleas were voluntarily entered, and that appellant’s counsel rendered him effective assistance. Though there was conflicting evidence, we are of the opinion that the findings of the trial judge are not clearly erroneous.

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

549 F.2d 1001, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 14040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-james-cook-v-united-states-ca5-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack