Louis Vernon Cawley v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Louis Vernon Cawley v. United States

251 F.2d 461

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 20, 1958

Docket16873

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 251 F.2d 461 (Louis Vernon Cawley 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

Louis Vernon Cawley v. United States, 251 F.2d 461 (5th Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a judgment denying his motion, filed under Section 2255, Title 28 U.S.C., to set aside a conviction and judgment affirmed in this court in 231 F.2d 650, presents an effort to attack the judgment of the district court on grounds which are not available in a motion of this kind but only by direct attack on an appeal from the judgment. In short, it is an effort in a collateral attack on the judgment to retry the case, and as such it is directly contrary to the decision of this court in Arthur v. United States, 5 Cir., 230 F.2d 666 and other cases to the same effect. Cf. Adams v. United States, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 354, 222 F.2d 45.

Among the matters which appellant sought to retry by his motion, one was whether counsel of his own choice competently defended him. The motion does not allege fraud or any kind of overreaching but merely that his counsel did not try the case as well as it could have *462 been tried. Other matters sought to be presented are: that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction; that the testimony of some of the witnesses against him was false; and generally that his conviction should be set aside and he ought to have a new trial. His final attack on the judgment as wrongly imposing consecutive sentences on the conspiracy count and a substantive count is wholly without legal basis. Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489; Valdez v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 249 F.2d 539.

No error of any kind appearing, the judgment is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a judgment denying his motion, filed under Section 2255, Title 28 U.S.C., to set aside a conviction and judgment affirmed in this court in 231 F.2d 650, presents an effort to attack the judgment of the district court on grounds which are not available in a motion of this kind but only by direct attack on an appeal from the judgment. In short, it is an effort in a collateral attack on the judgment to retry the case, and as such it is directly contrary to the decision of this court in Arthur v. United States, 5 Cir., 230 F.2d 666 and other cases to the same effect. Cf. Adams v. United States, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 354, 222 F.2d 45.

Among the matters which appellant sought to retry by his motion, one was whether counsel of his own choice competently defended him. The motion does not allege fraud or any kind of overreaching but merely that his counsel did not try the case as well as it could have *462 been tried. Other matters sought to be presented are: that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction; that the testimony of some of the witnesses against him was false; and generally that his conviction should be set aside and he ought to have a new trial. His final attack on the judgment as wrongly imposing consecutive sentences on the conspiracy count and a substantive count is wholly without legal basis. Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489; Valdez v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 249 F.2d 539.

No error of any kind appearing, the judgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 F.2d 461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louis-vernon-cawley-v-united-states-ca5-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack