Thomas J. Patterson, 92810 v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Thomas J. Patterson, 92810 v. United States

487 F.2d 341, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7091

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 9, 1973

Docket73-2788

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 487 F.2d 341 (Thomas J. Patterson, 92810 v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thomas J. Patterson, 92810 v. United States, 487 F.2d 341, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7091 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Patterson filed a habeas corpus petition in the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1970) seeking to have his previous conviction of escaping from federal custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751 (1970) set aside. As a basis for relief, appellant contended that his court-appointed counsel had refrained from requesting the court to have him examined for possible insanity at the time of his escape. Because of the alleged incompetence of counsel, appellant contended that he had been denied due process of law. ■

The district court conducted a hearing to ascertain the facts surrounding appellant’s claims. Appellant and two witnesses testified that appellant had indeed requested counsel to seek a psychiatric examination. Court-appointed counsel denied ever receiving such a request. Crediting the counsel’s testimony, the district court denied relief.

We affirm. Factual questions must be determined by the district court, and unless clearly erroneous are binding on the court of appeals. See United States v. Strother, 458 F.2d 424, 430 (5th Cir. 1972). Since this case falls within the well established rule,, we are bound to affirm the district court’s determinations of the factual issues.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Patterson filed a habeas corpus petition in the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1970) seeking to have his previous conviction of escaping from federal custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751 (1970) set aside. As a basis for relief, appellant contended that his court-appointed counsel had refrained from requesting the court to have him examined for possible insanity at the time of his escape. Because of the alleged incompetence of counsel, appellant contended that he had been denied due process of law. ■

The district court conducted a hearing to ascertain the facts surrounding appellant’s claims. Appellant and two witnesses testified that appellant had indeed requested counsel to seek a psychiatric examination. Court-appointed counsel denied ever receiving such a request. Crediting the counsel’s testimony, the district court denied relief.

We affirm. Factual questions must be determined by the district court, and unless clearly erroneous are binding on the court of appeals. See United States v. Strother, 458 F.2d 424, 430 (5th Cir. 1972). Since this case falls within the well established rule,, we are bound to affirm the district court’s determinations of the factual issues.

Affirmed.

617 F.2d 636 (D.C. Circuit, 1980)

American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Marshall

617 F.2d 636 (D.C. Circuit, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

487 F.2d 341, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7091, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-j-patterson-92810-v-united-states-ca5-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack