United States of America Ex Rel. Edward C. Behm v. Harry E. Russell, Superintendent State Correctional Institution, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania

371 F.2d 1016
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedFebruary 20, 1967
Docket16011_1
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
United States of America Ex Rel. Edward C. Behm v. Harry E. Russell, Superintendent State Correctional Institution, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, 371 F.2d 1016 (3d Cir. 1967).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

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

Bluebook (online)
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.