Lawrence Mark Pohlabel v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Lawrence Mark Pohlabel v. United States

367 F.2d 153, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5554

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 8, 1966

Docket22638

StatusPublished

This text of 367 F.2d 153 (Lawrence Mark Pohlabel 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

Lawrence Mark Pohlabel v. United States, 367 F.2d 153, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5554 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from denial of a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. Appellant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of burglary of a United States Post Office in Georgia. Appellant’s present motion challenges the constitutionality of his continued confinement on the following grounds: (1) that he was denied counsel of his own choice during his original trial; (2) that he *154 was not served a copy of the indictment; and (3) that he was mentally incompetent at the time of his plea of guilty and thus unable to enter such a plea.

The District Court conducted a full and thorough hearing on Appellant’s motion at which Appellant was represented by privately retained counsel. In its detailed opinion the District Court specifically found against Appellant on each of the three points. Pohlabel v. United States, N.D.Ga., 1965, 258 F.Supp. 782. The record amply supports the District Court’s conclusions and judgment, and accordingly we affirm.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from denial of a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. Appellant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of burglary of a United States Post Office in Georgia. Appellant’s present motion challenges the constitutionality of his continued confinement on the following grounds: (1) that he was denied counsel of his own choice during his original trial; (2) that he *154 was not served a copy of the indictment; and (3) that he was mentally incompetent at the time of his plea of guilty and thus unable to enter such a plea.

The District Court conducted a full and thorough hearing on Appellant’s motion at which Appellant was represented by privately retained counsel. In its detailed opinion the District Court specifically found against Appellant on each of the three points. Pohlabel v. United States, N.D.Ga., 1965, 258 F.Supp. 782. The record amply supports the District Court’s conclusions and judgment, and accordingly we affirm.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

367 F.2d 153, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-mark-pohlabel-v-united-states-ca5-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack