Louis Cito v. United States

Tenth Circuit

Louis Cito v. United States

283 F.2d 49

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedOctober 6, 1960

Docket6465_1

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 283 F.2d 49 (Louis Cito v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Louis Cito v. United States, 283 F.2d 49 (10th Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed a petition in the District Court for the District of Colorado for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis alleging that his conviction and subsequent sentence for conspiracy to burglarize and burglary of a United States post office were improper. His sole contention is that the evidence at trial did not show that the crime was perpetrated in that portion of the burglarized building dedicated to the functions of a federal post office. Relief was denied by trial court in the form sought and also as considered under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.

The judgment is affirmed. Coram no-bis is neither a substitute for direct appeal nor for proper relief under § 2255. Adam v. United States, 10 Cir., 274 F.2d 880. Appellant’s conviction was considered and affirmed on direct appeal, Cito v. United States, 10 Cir., 238 F.2d 766, and the collateral issues determined in a companion case, Skoog v. United States, 10 Cir., 268 F.2d 218.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed a petition in the District Court for the District of Colorado for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis alleging that his conviction and subsequent sentence for conspiracy to burglarize and burglary of a United States post office were improper. His sole contention is that the evidence at trial did not show that the crime was perpetrated in that portion of the burglarized building dedicated to the functions of a federal post office. Relief was denied by trial court in the form sought and also as considered under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.

The judgment is affirmed. Coram no-bis is neither a substitute for direct appeal nor for proper relief under § 2255. Adam v. United States, 10 Cir., 274 F.2d 880. Appellant’s conviction was considered and affirmed on direct appeal, Cito v. United States, 10 Cir., 238 F.2d 766, and the collateral issues determined in a companion case, Skoog v. United States, 10 Cir., 268 F.2d 218.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 F.2d 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louis-cito-v-united-states-ca10-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack