Julius Bayken v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Julius Bayken v. United States

272 F.2d 186, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3089

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedNovember 13, 1959

Docket13727

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 272 F.2d 186 (Julius Bayken v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 F.2d 186, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/julius-bayken-v-united-states-ca6-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack