United States of America Ex Rel. Edward C. Behm v. Harry E. Russell, Superintendent State Correctional Institution, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania
This text of 371 F.2d 1016 (United States of America Ex Rel. Edward C. Behm v. Harry E. Russell, Superintendent State Correctional Institution, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania) 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.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
The appellant, a state prisoner, has appealed from the denial of his petition for habeas corpus. His principal contention is that he pleaded guilty without the constitutionally essential benefit of counsel. With adequate justification in the record, the disputed factual issues concerning the appointment and conduct of counsel have been decided against the appellant. Accordingly, the collateral attack upon his conviction fails.
The court notes with disapproval the failure of counsel for the appellee to file a brief and an appendix which might have facilitated our consideration of this appeal.
The judgment will be affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
371 F.2d 1016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-of-america-ex-rel-edward-c-behm-v-harry-e-russell-ca3-1967.