Hoffler v. Peyton

Fourth Circuit

Hoffler v. Peyton

411 F.2d 608

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 16, 1969

DocketNos. 11234, 11235

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 411 F.2d 608 (Hoffler v. Peyton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hoffler v. Peyton, 411 F.2d 608 (4th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Hubert Earl Hoffler and Ruben Pierce appeal from an order of the district court denying their petitions for writs of ha-beas corpus.

Petitioners’ sole claim for relief is that they were denied the effective assistance of counsel at their trial resulting in their conviction for robbery in April 1963. Their convictions were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. Pierce v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 528, 138 S.E.2d 28 (1964).

After a plenary hearing, the Circuit Court for the City of Suffolk denied their petitions for writs of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed in an opinion that fully discusses their claim of ineffective representation. Hoffler v. Peyton, 207 Va. 302, 149 S.E.2d 893 (1966). When the petitioners sought relief in federal court, the district judge concluded that another plenary hearing was unnecessary. Hoffler v. Peyton, No. 5781, and Pierce v. Peyton, No. 5809 (E.D.Va., Dec. 30, 1966 (mem. dec.). We agree that a federal evidentiary hearing was unnecessary, Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963), and that the petitioners’ claim does not rise to constitutional proportions. Sykes v. Commonwealth, 364 F.2d 314 (4th Cir. 1966); Root v. Cunningham, 344 F.2d 1 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 866, 86 S.Ct. 135, 15 L.Ed.2d 104 (1965).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Hubert Earl Hoffler and Ruben Pierce appeal from an order of the district court denying their petitions for writs of ha-beas corpus.

Petitioners’ sole claim for relief is that they were denied the effective assistance of counsel at their trial resulting in their conviction for robbery in April 1963. Their convictions were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. Pierce v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 528, 138 S.E.2d 28 (1964).

After a plenary hearing, the Circuit Court for the City of Suffolk denied their petitions for writs of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed in an opinion that fully discusses their claim of ineffective representation. Hoffler v. Peyton, 207 Va. 302, 149 S.E.2d 893 (1966). When the petitioners sought relief in federal court, the district judge concluded that another plenary hearing was unnecessary. Hoffler v. Peyton, No. 5781, and Pierce v. Peyton, No. 5809 (E.D.Va., Dec. 30, 1966 (mem. dec.). We agree that a federal evidentiary hearing was unnecessary, Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963), and that the petitioners’ claim does not rise to constitutional proportions. Sykes v. Commonwealth, 364 F.2d 314 (4th Cir. 1966); Root v. Cunningham, 344 F.2d 1 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 866, 86 S.Ct. 135, 15 L.Ed.2d 104 (1965).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

411 F.2d 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffler-v-peyton-ca4-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack