James W. Brewen v. United States

Fifth Circuit

James W. Brewen v. United States

396 F.2d 350, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6525

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 14, 1968

Docket25464

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 396 F.2d 350 (James W. Brewen v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James W. Brewen v. United States, 396 F.2d 350, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6525 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from the denial of a motion to vacate, 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On a previous appeal, we reversed and remanded the case with the direction that there be a further evidentiary hearing with appellant present. Brewen v. United States, 5th Cir. 1967, 375 F.2d 285. At the hearing, appellant, represented by court-appointed counsel, was present and testified. At the previous hearing, his former retained counsel had testified.

The district court held that appellant had not been, as he contended, indigent during the time in October, 1962, in which notice could have been filed for a direct appeal. It further held that his retained counsel, under the circumstances of the case, had no duty to advise him of his right to appeal or of the time limits for appeal and that the trial court had no such duty. Cf. Rule 32(a) (2), Fed.R.Crim. P., as amended effective July 1, 1966. A thorough study of the record in this case leads us to the conclusion that these findings are not clearly erroneous.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from the denial of a motion to vacate, 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On a previous appeal, we reversed and remanded the case with the direction that there be a further evidentiary hearing with appellant present. Brewen v. United States, 5th Cir. 1967, 375 F.2d 285. At the hearing, appellant, represented by court-appointed counsel, was present and testified. At the previous hearing, his former retained counsel had testified.

The district court held that appellant had not been, as he contended, indigent during the time in October, 1962, in which notice could have been filed for a direct appeal. It further held that his retained counsel, under the circumstances of the case, had no duty to advise him of his right to appeal or of the time limits for appeal and that the trial court had no such duty. Cf. Rule 32(a) (2), Fed.R.Crim. P., as amended effective July 1, 1966. A thorough study of the record in this case leads us to the conclusion that these findings are not clearly erroneous.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

396 F.2d 350, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-w-brewen-v-united-states-ca5-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack