Junius Lee Mason v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Junius Lee Mason v. United States

290 F.2d 742, 110 U.S. App. D.C. 199, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4690

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 27, 1961

Docket16152_1

StatusPublished

This text of 290 F.2d 742 (Junius Lee Mason v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Junius Lee Mason v. United States, 290 F.2d 742, 110 U.S. App. D.C. 199, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4690 (D.C. Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged with second degree murder. After trial by jury he was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced by the District Court to a term of imprisonment. He filed a timely application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, which was denied by the District Court. After filing a number of other motions in the District Court, he filed a motion to vacate sentence, under Section 2255 of Title 28 of the United States Code. This court granted him leave to appeal from the denial of this motion, and appointed counsel to assist him. Counsel so appointed urged reversal of the conviction, as well as vacation of the sentence.

Whether this case be considered as a belated direct appeal from the judgment of conviction, cf. Blunt v. United States, 1957, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 266, 244 F.2d 355, 1 or simply as an appeal from the order denying the motion under Section 2255, we must conclude that appellant is not entitled to relief. We have reviewed the entire record, and perceive no prejudicial error in the conduct of the trial, *743 or in the denial of the motion under Section 2255. Compare Ramsour v. United States, 1960, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 49, 280 F.2d 57.

Affirmed.

1

. We express no opinion as to whether on the facts here appellant is entitled to have his case so considered.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged with second degree murder. After trial by jury he was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced by the District Court to a term of imprisonment. He filed a timely application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, which was denied by the District Court. After filing a number of other motions in the District Court, he filed a motion to vacate sentence, under Section 2255 of Title 28 of the United States Code. This court granted him leave to appeal from the denial of this motion, and appointed counsel to assist him. Counsel so appointed urged reversal of the conviction, as well as vacation of the sentence.

Whether this case be considered as a belated direct appeal from the judgment of conviction, cf. Blunt v. United States, 1957, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 266, 244 F.2d 355, 1 or simply as an appeal from the order denying the motion under Section 2255, we must conclude that appellant is not entitled to relief. We have reviewed the entire record, and perceive no prejudicial error in the conduct of the trial, *743 or in the denial of the motion under Section 2255. Compare Ramsour v. United States, 1960, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 49, 280 F.2d 57.

Affirmed.

1

. We express no opinion as to whether on the facts here appellant is entitled to have his case so considered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 F.2d 742, 110 U.S. App. D.C. 199, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/junius-lee-mason-v-united-states-cadc-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack