James Miller and Robert O. Aurdrey v. United States

Fourth Circuit

James Miller and Robert O. Aurdrey v. United States

222 F.2d 365, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3819

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 6, 1955

Docket6960_1

StatusPublished

This text of 222 F.2d 365 (James Miller and Robert O. Aurdrey v. United States) 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

James Miller and Robert O. Aurdrey v. United States, 222 F.2d 365, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3819 (4th Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from denial of .a'motion, made under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate and set aside sentences of imprisonment. Appellants were charged with larceny of goods from an interstate shipment in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659. The trial judge has' found as a fact that appellants were advised by the court' of their right to counsel and to be tried by a jury upon an indictment, but that they, in open court, waived right' to counsel and to indictment. and consented to be tried upon information. Both entered pleas of guilty. Prior thereto they had made written statements to- officers of the government admitting their guilt and the judge finds that these were freely and voluntarily made after they had been advised of their rights. Under such circumstances the trial judge, who was acquainted with the'facts, was thoroughly justified in not having appellants produced in court on the hearing of their motion and in denying same.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from denial of .a'motion, made under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate and set aside sentences of imprisonment. Appellants were charged with larceny of goods from an interstate shipment in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659. The trial judge has' found as a fact that appellants were advised by the court' of their right to counsel and to be tried by a jury upon an indictment, but that they, in open court, waived right' to counsel and to indictment. and consented to be tried upon information. Both entered pleas of guilty. Prior thereto they had made written statements to- officers of the government admitting their guilt and the judge finds that these were freely and voluntarily made after they had been advised of their rights. Under such circumstances the trial judge, who was acquainted with the'facts, was thoroughly justified in not having appellants produced in court on the hearing of their motion and in denying same.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 F.2d 365, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-miller-and-robert-o-aurdrey-v-united-states-ca4-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack