Julius Bayken v. United States

272 F.2d 186, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3089
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·Decided November 13, 1959·No. 13727·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The above cause coming on to be heard upon the appeal of Julius Bay-ken from an order denying a motion to vacate sentence. Appellant contended that the District Court had not advised him of his constitutional rights, prior to his plea of guilty. His claim rested upon his testimony on the hearing of motion to vacate sentence. The District Court found the testimony unworthy of belief. The question of credibility is one for the determination of the trier of facts. The burden of proof was upon appellant. Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses. Rule 52(a) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. A review of the record is con *187 vincing that the trial court’s findings of fact were not erroneous. The order denying the motion to vacate sentence is affirmed.

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

Julius Bayken v. United States, 272 F.2d 186, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3089 (6th Cir. 1959).

272 F.2d 186 (Julius Bayken v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Barrows v. City of Chattanooga
944 F. Supp. 2d 596 (E.D. Tennessee, 2013)
Self v. United States
434 F. Supp. 548 (E.D. Tennessee, 1977)
Henry W. Jackson v. United States
353 F.2d 862 (D.C. Circuit, 1965)
Aiken v. United States
191 F. Supp. 43 (M.D. North Carolina, 1961)