Slack v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Slack v. United States

196 F.2d 493, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2484

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 4, 1952

Docket11514_1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 196 F.2d 493 (Slack 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

Slack v. United States, 196 F.2d 493, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2484 (6th Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In an appeal pending in the above cause, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee moves the court to remand the case to the district court for appropriate proceedings. He recites that the appellant had filed in the district court a motion to set aside a sentence there imposed but that upon a hearing on said motion the appellant was not present and did not have the effective service of counsel; that the court denied the motion upon consideration of the entire record but without notice to the defendant. The District Attorney is of the view that the case squarely is within the holding of the Supreme Court in United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 72 S.Ct. 263.

While the appellant contests the motion, it is our view that the decision in the Hay-man case compels its granting, and that here, as there, a new hearing can be afforded under the procedure established in 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Wherefore, it 'becomes our duty to reverse the order of the district court and to remand the case for a new hearing under the provisions of § 2255 and in accord with the procedure established by the cited case.

It is so ordered.

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

PER CURIAM.

In an appeal pending in the above cause, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee moves the court to remand the case to the district court for appropriate proceedings. He recites that the appellant had filed in the district court a motion to set aside a sentence there imposed but that upon a hearing on said motion the appellant was not present and did not have the effective service of counsel; that the court denied the motion upon consideration of the entire record but without notice to the defendant. The District Attorney is of the view that the case squarely is within the holding of the Supreme Court in United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 72 S.Ct. 263.

While the appellant contests the motion, it is our view that the decision in the Hay-man case compels its granting, and that here, as there, a new hearing can be afforded under the procedure established in 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Wherefore, it 'becomes our duty to reverse the order of the district court and to remand the case for a new hearing under the provisions of § 2255 and in accord with the procedure established by the cited case.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 F.2d 493, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slack-v-united-states-ca6-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack