H. E. Juelich v. United States

Fifth Circuit

H. E. Juelich v. United States

475 F.2d 788

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 22, 1973

Docket72-3530

StatusPublished

This text of 475 F.2d 788 (H. E. Juelich 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

H. E. Juelich v. United States, 475 F.2d 788 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner, Herbert E. Juelich, appeals from the District Court’s denial of his motion to vacate sentence, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We find that' petitioner’s contention, that his constitutional right to due process was denied when evidence stemming directly from an “illegal” autopsy was admitted at his trial, was considered and ruled upon in 1963 at an evidentiary hearing held pursuant to an earlier § 2255 motion. At that time, the District Judge rejected petitioner’s contention, and we affirmed, Juelich v. United States, 5 Cir. 1965, 342 F.2d 29, 31. 1 The District Court correctly rejected petitioner’s motion without holding an evidentiary hearing because petitioner is seeking relief previously sought under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on the same grounds previously raised and decided against him. Dryden v. United States, 5 Cir. 1972, 455 F.2d 491; Owens v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 430 F.2d 1173. We affirm.

Affirmed.

1

. See the quotation from the transcript of the 1963 evidentiary hearing in Juelich v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 403 F.2d 523. 525.

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

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner, Herbert E. Juelich, appeals from the District Court’s denial of his motion to vacate sentence, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We find that' petitioner’s contention, that his constitutional right to due process was denied when evidence stemming directly from an “illegal” autopsy was admitted at his trial, was considered and ruled upon in 1963 at an evidentiary hearing held pursuant to an earlier § 2255 motion. At that time, the District Judge rejected petitioner’s contention, and we affirmed, Juelich v. United States, 5 Cir. 1965, 342 F.2d 29, 31. 1 The District Court correctly rejected petitioner’s motion without holding an evidentiary hearing because petitioner is seeking relief previously sought under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on the same grounds previously raised and decided against him. Dryden v. United States, 5 Cir. 1972, 455 F.2d 491; Owens v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 430 F.2d 1173. We affirm.

Affirmed.

1

. See the quotation from the transcript of the 1963 evidentiary hearing in Juelich v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 403 F.2d 523. 525.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

475 F.2d 788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/h-e-juelich-v-united-states-ca5-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack