McDonald v. United States

Sixth Circuit

McDonald v. United States

166 F.2d 323, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2340

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMarch 1, 1948

DocketNo. 10581

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 166 F.2d 323 (McDonald v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McDonald v. United States, 166 F.2d 323, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2340 (6th Cir. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order entered on May 15, 1947, by Judge Levin in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, denying the motion of Walter McDonald to vacate judgment of conviction entered in the same district by District Judge Moinet upon the verdict of a jury. This court heretofore affirmed on appeal a re-sentence of the convict by Judge Moinet within the lawful limits of section 588b, Title 12 U.S.C.A. McDonald v. Moinet, 6 Cir., 139 F.2d 939, certiorari denied, 322 U.S. 730, 64 S.Ct. 942, 88 L.Ed. 1565, rehearing denied, 322 U.S. 769, 64 S.Ct. 1142, 88 L.Ed. 1595. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in affirming dismissal of habeas corpus proceedings, took the same view which we did. McDonald v. Johnston, Warden, 9 Cir., 149 F.2d 768.

The present appeal raises substantially the same questions which have been three times adjudged adversely to appellant by United States Circuit Courts of Appeal. See McDonald v. Hudspeth, Warden, 10 Cir., 129 F.2d 196, certiorari denied, 317 U.S. 665, 63 S.Ct. 75, 87 L.Ed. 535; McDonald v. Hudspeth, Warden, 10 Cir., 113 F.2d 984, certiorari denied, 311 U.S. 683, 61 S.Ct. 64, 85 L.Ed. 441; Johnston, Warden v. McDonald, 9 Cir., 157 F.2d 275, certior-ari denied, 329 U.S. 795, 67 S.Ct. 480.

An examination of the record before us shows that McDonald was not denied assistance of counsel, but was duly represented by an attorney upon arraignment and at his trial. This appears from the depositions of District Judge Moinet, who presided at the jury trial; of Assistant United States Attorney Babcock, who prosecuted appellant; and of Attorney Cur-ran, who defended him. It is obvious that none of appellant’s constitutional or lawful rights has been violated in the court below.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order entered on May 15, 1947, by Judge Levin in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, denying the motion of Walter McDonald to vacate judgment of conviction entered in the same district by District Judge Moinet upon the verdict of a jury. This court heretofore affirmed on appeal a re-sentence of the convict by Judge Moinet within the lawful limits of section 588b, Title 12 U.S.C.A. McDonald v. Moinet, 6 Cir., 139 F.2d 939, certiorari denied, 322 U.S. 730, 64 S.Ct. 942, 88 L.Ed. 1565, rehearing denied, 322 U.S. 769, 64 S.Ct. 1142, 88 L.Ed. 1595. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in affirming dismissal of habeas corpus proceedings, took the same view which we did. McDonald v. Johnston, Warden, 9 Cir., 149 F.2d 768.

The present appeal raises substantially the same questions which have been three times adjudged adversely to appellant by United States Circuit Courts of Appeal. See McDonald v. Hudspeth, Warden, 10 Cir., 129 F.2d 196, certiorari denied, 317 U.S. 665, 63 S.Ct. 75, 87 L.Ed. 535; McDonald v. Hudspeth, Warden, 10 Cir., 113 F.2d 984, certiorari denied, 311 U.S. 683, 61 S.Ct. 64, 85 L.Ed. 441; Johnston, Warden v. McDonald, 9 Cir., 157 F.2d 275, certior-ari denied, 329 U.S. 795, 67 S.Ct. 480.

An examination of the record before us shows that McDonald was not denied assistance of counsel, but was duly represented by an attorney upon arraignment and at his trial. This appears from the depositions of District Judge Moinet, who presided at the jury trial; of Assistant United States Attorney Babcock, who prosecuted appellant; and of Attorney Cur-ran, who defended him. It is obvious that none of appellant’s constitutional or lawful rights has been violated in the court below.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 F.2d 323, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdonald-v-united-states-ca6-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack