Ivan Daniel Neighbors v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Ivan Daniel Neighbors v. United States

457 F.2d 795, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10957

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 3, 1972

Docket71-2694

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 457 F.2d 795 (Ivan Daniel Neighbors 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

Ivan Daniel Neighbors v. United States, 457 F.2d 795, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10957 (9th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his section 2255 petition. Appellant and a codefendant Reed were convicted of violating the Federal Kidnaping Act (18 U.S.C. § 1201). The convictions were affirmed on appeal. (Reed v. United States (9th Cir. 1966) 364 F.2d 630, cert. denied, 386 U.S. 918, 87 S.Ct. 873, 17 L.Ed.2d 789.)

Appellant’s present petition averred that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel because his court-appointed lawyer was inexperienced in handling criminal cases and because the district court failed to appoint for him counsel separate from his codefendant. Appellant’s allegations are entirely con-elusory. A reading of the transcript of the trial discloses noi conflict of interest in counsel’s representation of appellant and his codefendant. No facts are alleged dehors the trial record to support appellant’s conclusion that his defense was slighted by the joint representation. There is nothing in the record to indicate that counsel did an inadequate job in representing appellant. Our examination of the record convinces us that the district court was correct in rejecting appellant’s contentions.

The order is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his section 2255 petition. Appellant and a codefendant Reed were convicted of violating the Federal Kidnaping Act (18 U.S.C. § 1201). The convictions were affirmed on appeal. (Reed v. United States (9th Cir. 1966) 364 F.2d 630, cert. denied, 386 U.S. 918, 87 S.Ct. 873, 17 L.Ed.2d 789.)

Appellant’s present petition averred that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel because his court-appointed lawyer was inexperienced in handling criminal cases and because the district court failed to appoint for him counsel separate from his codefendant. Appellant’s allegations are entirely con-elusory. A reading of the transcript of the trial discloses noi conflict of interest in counsel’s representation of appellant and his codefendant. No facts are alleged dehors the trial record to support appellant’s conclusion that his defense was slighted by the joint representation. There is nothing in the record to indicate that counsel did an inadequate job in representing appellant. Our examination of the record convinces us that the district court was correct in rejecting appellant’s contentions.

The order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

457 F.2d 795, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ivan-daniel-neighbors-v-united-states-ca9-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack