Richard L. Marshall v. United States

Tenth Circuit

Richard L. Marshall v. United States

321 F.2d 897, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4587

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedJuly 19, 1963

Docket7330

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 321 F.2d 897 (Richard L. Marshall 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

Richard L. Marshall v. United States, 321 F.2d 897, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4587 (10th Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Marshall has appealed for the second time from the denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He again attacks the validity of the sentence imposed but this was determined adversely to him on his prior appeal. Marshall v. United States, 10 Cir., 299 F.2d 141, certiorari denied 370 U.S. 958, 82 S.Ct. 1606, 8 L.Ed.2d 824. Additionally he asserts that he was unconstitutionally denied counsel at the time of his first arraignment.

The record shows that at arraignment the court advised Marshall of his right to counsel and Marshall replied that he was thinking about hiring a lawyer whom he named. The court then inquired of Marshall whether he wanted to proceed or wait. Marshall replied: “Well, just as well plead not guilty at the present.” Later a lawyer was appointed and Marshall changed his plea to guilty. In the circumstances no prejudice appears. Cf. Crooker v. California, 357 U.S. 433, 439, 440, 78 S.Ct. 1287, 2 L.Ed.2d 1448; Latham v. Crouse, 10 Cir., 320 F.2d 120.

In the brief of counsel appointed by this court to represent Marshall on this appeal the claim is made that Marshall was not represented by effective counsel at the time of his change of plea and sentence. This contention was not raised by the motion under § 2255 and was not considered by the trial court. It may not now be raised for the first time on appeal. Way v. United States, 10 Cir., 276 F.2d 912, 913; Richardson v. United States, 10 Cir., 199 F.2d 333, 335.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Marshall has appealed for the second time from the denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He again attacks the validity of the sentence imposed but this was determined adversely to him on his prior appeal. Marshall v. United States, 10 Cir., 299 F.2d 141, certiorari denied 370 U.S. 958, 82 S.Ct. 1606, 8 L.Ed.2d 824. Additionally he asserts that he was unconstitutionally denied counsel at the time of his first arraignment.

The record shows that at arraignment the court advised Marshall of his right to counsel and Marshall replied that he was thinking about hiring a lawyer whom he named. The court then inquired of Marshall whether he wanted to proceed or wait. Marshall replied: “Well, just as well plead not guilty at the present.” Later a lawyer was appointed and Marshall changed his plea to guilty. In the circumstances no prejudice appears. Cf. Crooker v. California, 357 U.S. 433, 439, 440, 78 S.Ct. 1287, 2 L.Ed.2d 1448; Latham v. Crouse, 10 Cir., 320 F.2d 120.

In the brief of counsel appointed by this court to represent Marshall on this appeal the claim is made that Marshall was not represented by effective counsel at the time of his change of plea and sentence. This contention was not raised by the motion under § 2255 and was not considered by the trial court. It may not now be raised for the first time on appeal. Way v. United States, 10 Cir., 276 F.2d 912, 913; Richardson v. United States, 10 Cir., 199 F.2d 333, 335.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

321 F.2d 897, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-l-marshall-v-united-states-ca10-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack