United States of America Ex Rel. George Powell v. Alfred T. Rundle, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Graterford, Pennsylvania

Third Circuit

United States of America Ex Rel. George Powell v. Alfred T. Rundle, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Graterford, Pennsylvania

370 F.2d 331, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7854

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJanuary 6, 1967

Docket16000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 370 F.2d 331 (United States of America Ex Rel. George Powell v. Alfred T. Rundle, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Graterford, 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. George Powell v. Alfred T. Rundle, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Graterford, Pennsylvania, 370 F.2d 331, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7854 (3d Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the denial of appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He has alleged two related constitutional violations: (1) that he was denied the assistance of effective counsel at his trial; (2) that he was convicted on evidence illegally obtained. It is clear that unless his counsel was ineffective, appellant’s illegal search and seizure claim must be deemed to have been waived. See Henry v. State of Mississippi, 379 U.S. 443, 85 S.Ct. 564, 13 L.Ed.2d 408 (1965). The district court’s opinion (unreported) fully explores the factual background of this case; its basic find *332 ings are not clearly erroneous and fully support its conclusion that appellant was not denied the assistance of effective counsel.

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 the denial of appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He has alleged two related constitutional violations: (1) that he was denied the assistance of effective counsel at his trial; (2) that he was convicted on evidence illegally obtained. It is clear that unless his counsel was ineffective, appellant’s illegal search and seizure claim must be deemed to have been waived. See Henry v. State of Mississippi, 379 U.S. 443, 85 S.Ct. 564, 13 L.Ed.2d 408 (1965). The district court’s opinion (unreported) fully explores the factual background of this case; its basic find *332 ings are not clearly erroneous and fully support its conclusion that appellant was not denied the assistance of effective counsel.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

370 F.2d 331, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-of-america-ex-rel-george-powell-v-alfred-t-rundle-ca3-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack