Robert J. Wilkinson v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Robert J. Wilkinson v. United States

432 F.2d 1008

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 29, 1970

Docket24338

StatusPublished

This text of 432 F.2d 1008 (Robert J. Wilkinson v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robert J. Wilkinson v. United States, 432 F.2d 1008 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, the appellant claims that he was mentally incompetent at the time of his plea of guilty to a Dyer Act violation on August 12,1966.

The district court held a hearing on the issues presented and found that appellant was mentally competent at the time of the commission of the crime, at the time of the entry of the plea of guilty and imposition of sentence and at the time of the hearing in the district court. Our examination of the record convinces us that there is ample evidence to support these findings. Likewise, the record supports the trial judge’s finding that the appellant, in open court, waived his right to have the charge presented to the grand jury.

Affirmed. 1

1

. In reaching this conclusion, we have been compelled, independently, carefully to review the record. We invite the attention of appellant’s appointed counsel to Harders v. California, 373 F.2d 839 (9th Cir. 1967).

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

PER CURIAM:

In this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, the appellant claims that he was mentally incompetent at the time of his plea of guilty to a Dyer Act violation on August 12,1966.

The district court held a hearing on the issues presented and found that appellant was mentally competent at the time of the commission of the crime, at the time of the entry of the plea of guilty and imposition of sentence and at the time of the hearing in the district court. Our examination of the record convinces us that there is ample evidence to support these findings. Likewise, the record supports the trial judge’s finding that the appellant, in open court, waived his right to have the charge presented to the grand jury.

Affirmed. 1

1

. In reaching this conclusion, we have been compelled, independently, carefully to review the record. We invite the attention of appellant’s appointed counsel to Harders v. California, 373 F.2d 839 (9th Cir. 1967).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

432 F.2d 1008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-j-wilkinson-v-united-states-ca9-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack