James E. Lofland v. United States

Ninth Circuit

James E. Lofland v. United States

390 F.2d 875

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 29, 1968

Docket21474_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 390 F.2d 875 (James E. Lofland 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

James E. Lofland v. United States, 390 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, presently confined in federal custody after conviction of a federal crime (during trial for which he was represented by retained counsel), appeals the order of the district court, made on his § 2255 petition, denying his motion for vacation of sentence.

The basis of appellant’s motion was his alleged lack of counsel on appeal, although he had allegedly requested such representation. The court below denied relief, upon the theory there was no *876 proof of such request, and that appellant had waived any right to such representation (C.T. 13, 18-19).

The real issue on this appeal is whether appellant did have assistance of counsel on his appeal. The record discloses that Thomas Lefner, his retained counsel below, reviewed the trial transcript and prepared the Opening Brief, after consulting with Lofland. Lefner’s oral argument attempted to rebut the contentions put forth in the Appellee’s Brief. These proved facts overcome Lofland’s vague allegations that Lefner was an “amicus curiae” only, and was not formally appointed “immediately.” Appellant has failed to allege specific facts showing that he was actually deprived of the assistance of counsel on appeal.

The denial of appellant’s motion to vacate is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, presently confined in federal custody after conviction of a federal crime (during trial for which he was represented by retained counsel), appeals the order of the district court, made on his § 2255 petition, denying his motion for vacation of sentence.

The basis of appellant’s motion was his alleged lack of counsel on appeal, although he had allegedly requested such representation. The court below denied relief, upon the theory there was no *876 proof of such request, and that appellant had waived any right to such representation (C.T. 13, 18-19).

The real issue on this appeal is whether appellant did have assistance of counsel on his appeal. The record discloses that Thomas Lefner, his retained counsel below, reviewed the trial transcript and prepared the Opening Brief, after consulting with Lofland. Lefner’s oral argument attempted to rebut the contentions put forth in the Appellee’s Brief. These proved facts overcome Lofland’s vague allegations that Lefner was an “amicus curiae” only, and was not formally appointed “immediately.” Appellant has failed to allege specific facts showing that he was actually deprived of the assistance of counsel on appeal.

The denial of appellant’s motion to vacate is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

390 F.2d 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-e-lofland-v-united-states-ca9-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack