Ivory Wilson v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Ivory Wilson v. United States

338 F.2d 54, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4082

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 23, 1964

Docket19113

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 338 F.2d 54 (Ivory Wilson 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

Ivory Wilson v. United States, 338 F.2d 54, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4082 (9th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

MERRILL, Circuit Judge.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1958) appellant moved to vacate and set aside judgment of conviction on three counts of violation of the narcotics laws. His motion was denied without hearing by the District Court for the Western District of Washington and he has taken this, appeal.

Sole ground for relief is that contrary to his instructions his trial counsel failed to take an appeal from judgment. Accordingly under Rules 37(a) (2) and 45 (b) F.R.Cr.P., his right to appeal was lost. United States v. Robinson (1960) 361 U.S. 220, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259. He asserts that this has resulted in a loss-of a basic constitutional right for which loss he is entitled to a remedy under § 2255. As support for his contention he-relies upon Dodd v. United States, (9 Cir.. 1963) 321 F.2d 240.

*55 'That case is distinguishable. There 'the petition set forth numerous allegations of error and of matters occurring ■on trial which, if proved, might be ■deemed a denial of basic rights. There are no allegations of such prejudice here. Indeed, the petition alleges no error ■-whatsoever.

Affirmed.

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

MERRILL, Circuit Judge.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1958) appellant moved to vacate and set aside judgment of conviction on three counts of violation of the narcotics laws. His motion was denied without hearing by the District Court for the Western District of Washington and he has taken this, appeal.

Sole ground for relief is that contrary to his instructions his trial counsel failed to take an appeal from judgment. Accordingly under Rules 37(a) (2) and 45 (b) F.R.Cr.P., his right to appeal was lost. United States v. Robinson (1960) 361 U.S. 220, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259. He asserts that this has resulted in a loss-of a basic constitutional right for which loss he is entitled to a remedy under § 2255. As support for his contention he-relies upon Dodd v. United States, (9 Cir.. 1963) 321 F.2d 240.

*55 'That case is distinguishable. There 'the petition set forth numerous allegations of error and of matters occurring ■on trial which, if proved, might be ■deemed a denial of basic rights. There are no allegations of such prejudice here. Indeed, the petition alleges no error ■-whatsoever.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

338 F.2d 54, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ivory-wilson-v-united-states-ca9-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack