Julius Chris Fisherman v. Walter D. Achuff, Etc.

Ninth Circuit

Julius Chris Fisherman v. Walter D. Achuff, Etc.

392 F.2d 587, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7398

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 9, 1968

Docket21598

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 392 F.2d 587 (Julius Chris Fisherman v. Walter D. Achuff, Etc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Julius Chris Fisherman v. Walter D. Achuff, Etc., 392 F.2d 587, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7398 (9th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

The order of the district court is reversed.

We do not believe appellant’s contention about a nunc pro tunc order of the state trial judge rises to federal constitutional dimensions. Further, we are satisfied with California’s handling of it. People v. Fisherman, 237 Cal.App.2d 356, 47 Cal.Rptr. 33, 35.

Somewhere, we believe that Fisherman is entitled to a hearing on his allegations about his guilty plea and his allegations about denial of effective representation of counsel at his probation revocation-resentencing hearing.

We suggest that the district court might well order that it will delay any hearing for 45 or 60 days to see if the California courts will not provide Fisherman a hearing on the points that as pleaded seem to merit inquiry. And, the district court may direct Fisherman to seek the state relief. After such a period, the district court may then decide whether it needs a hearing to comply with this court’s views.

Nothing said hereinabove should be understood to prevent the district court at some time requiring the appellant to make his allegations less conclusory.

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