John Webb v. United States

Fifth Circuit

John Webb v. United States

510 F.2d 1097, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 15587

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 18, 1975

Docket74--3836

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 510 F.2d 1097 (John Webb 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

John Webb v. United States, 510 F.2d 1097, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 15587 (5th Cir. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner seeks release from prison under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He makes four contentions. He contends that his rights were violated when the prosecutor questioned a witness about his previous crimes. He also contends that the federal trial court judge violated his rights in allowing the questioning. These two issues were raised in petitioner’s direct appeal, United States v. Webb, 5 Cir. 1972, 463 F.2d 1324, cert. denied 409 U.S. 986, 93 S.Ct. 338, 34 L.Ed.2d 251, and we are thus foreclosed from reconsidering them here, Lacaze v. United States, 5 Cir. 1972, 457 F.2d 1075 at 1078, cert. denied 409 U.S. 921, 93 S.Ct. 251, 34 L.Ed.2d 180. Petitioner also argues that he was not effectively assisted by counsel, and that he was denied access to the trial court’s hearing, in chambers, of a severed co-defendant’s motion for a continuance. But petitioner was not denied effective assistance of counsel and the hearing to which he refers had nothing to do with the merits of his own case. The district court’s denial of petitioner’s motion is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner seeks release from prison under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He makes four contentions. He contends that his rights were violated when the prosecutor questioned a witness about his previous crimes. He also contends that the federal trial court judge violated his rights in allowing the questioning. These two issues were raised in petitioner’s direct appeal, United States v. Webb, 5 Cir. 1972, 463 F.2d 1324, cert. denied 409 U.S. 986, 93 S.Ct. 338, 34 L.Ed.2d 251, and we are thus foreclosed from reconsidering them here, Lacaze v. United States, 5 Cir. 1972, 457 F.2d 1075 at 1078, cert. denied 409 U.S. 921, 93 S.Ct. 251, 34 L.Ed.2d 180. Petitioner also argues that he was not effectively assisted by counsel, and that he was denied access to the trial court’s hearing, in chambers, of a severed co-defendant’s motion for a continuance. But petitioner was not denied effective assistance of counsel and the hearing to which he refers had nothing to do with the merits of his own case. The district court’s denial of petitioner’s motion is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

510 F.2d 1097, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 15587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-webb-v-united-states-ca5-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack