Stephen Luther Evans v. United States

Third Circuit

Stephen Luther Evans v. United States

411 F.2d 591, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12011

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJune 10, 1969

Docket17647

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 411 F.2d 591 (Stephen Luther Evans v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stephen Luther Evans v. United States, 411 F.2d 591, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12011 (3d Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate a sentence based on a bank robbery conviction by a jury. Appellant’s conviction was affirmed on appeal. See United States v. Evans, 239 F.Supp. 554 (E.D. Pa. 1965), aff’d., 359 F.2d 776 (3rd Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 863, 87 S.Ct. 120, 17 L.Ed.2d 90 (1966).

In his section 2255 petition appellant asserts certain new grounds and variations of errors alleged previously in his direct review proceedings. In the latter category is the claim that he alone was compelled to wear sunglasses during a police line-up as did the alleged robber during the hold-up. The short answer is that the record shows that the other participants in the line-up also wore sunglasses. Appellant makes a series of arguments as a last resort that he was represented by ineffective court-appointed counsel. Assuming such arguments are now cognizable, we find them either to be unsupported by the record *592 or lacking in legal merit. The same can be said of his other allegations of error in the conduct of the trial.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate a sentence based on a bank robbery conviction by a jury. Appellant’s conviction was affirmed on appeal. See United States v. Evans, 239 F.Supp. 554 (E.D. Pa. 1965), aff’d., 359 F.2d 776 (3rd Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 863, 87 S.Ct. 120, 17 L.Ed.2d 90 (1966).

In his section 2255 petition appellant asserts certain new grounds and variations of errors alleged previously in his direct review proceedings. In the latter category is the claim that he alone was compelled to wear sunglasses during a police line-up as did the alleged robber during the hold-up. The short answer is that the record shows that the other participants in the line-up also wore sunglasses. Appellant makes a series of arguments as a last resort that he was represented by ineffective court-appointed counsel. Assuming such arguments are now cognizable, we find them either to be unsupported by the record *592 or lacking in legal merit. The same can be said of his other allegations of error in the conduct of the trial.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

411 F.2d 591, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephen-luther-evans-v-united-states-ca3-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack