Leroy Wilson v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Leroy Wilson v. United States

274 F.2d 94, 107 U.S. App. D.C. 32, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 2837

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 23, 1959

Docket15191

StatusPublished

This text of 274 F.2d 94 (Leroy Wilson 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

Leroy Wilson v. United States, 274 F.2d 94, 107 U.S. App. D.C. 32, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 2837 (D.C. Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a narcotics ease. Police officers with a search warrant searched an apartment and found appellant there cowering in a state of undress under some clothes in a closet. They found a key to the apartment in his clothes, a hat belonging to him in a hatbox, and in the same box a considerable quantity of heroin. Officers testified that when they sought the address of the nominal lessee of the place appellant told them not to proceed further in that direction as the apartment *95 was his (appellant’s) and the narcotics were also his. On the witness stand appellant denied making any such statements. He was convicted on two counts. On appeal he complains of the trial judge’s charge to the jury.

We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by able and conscientious court-appointed counsel. The principal impact of these contentions is on Count 2 of the indictment. But the sentences on Counts 1 and 2 are concurrent. We have no doubt as to the propriety of the conviction obtained on Count 1 and rest our decision on that count. 1

Affirmed.

1

. Hirabayashi v. United States, 1943, 320 U.S. 81, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a narcotics ease. Police officers with a search warrant searched an apartment and found appellant there cowering in a state of undress under some clothes in a closet. They found a key to the apartment in his clothes, a hat belonging to him in a hatbox, and in the same box a considerable quantity of heroin. Officers testified that when they sought the address of the nominal lessee of the place appellant told them not to proceed further in that direction as the apartment *95 was his (appellant’s) and the narcotics were also his. On the witness stand appellant denied making any such statements. He was convicted on two counts. On appeal he complains of the trial judge’s charge to the jury.

We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by able and conscientious court-appointed counsel. The principal impact of these contentions is on Count 2 of the indictment. But the sentences on Counts 1 and 2 are concurrent. We have no doubt as to the propriety of the conviction obtained on Count 1 and rest our decision on that count. 1

Affirmed.

1

. Hirabayashi v. United States, 1943, 320 U.S. 81, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 F.2d 94, 107 U.S. App. D.C. 32, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 2837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leroy-wilson-v-united-states-cadc-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack