United States of America Ex Rel. William J. Steele, Jr. v. James F. Maroney, Superintendent State Correctional Institution, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

369 F.2d 807, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4486
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedNovember 3, 1966
Docket15674_1
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 369 F.2d 807 (United States of America Ex Rel. William J. Steele, Jr. v. James F. Maroney, Superintendent State Correctional Institution, Pittsburgh, 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. William J. Steele, Jr. v. James F. Maroney, Superintendent State Correctional Institution, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 369 F.2d 807, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4486 (3d Cir. 1966).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

The District Court denied the appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus on its finding that there was no foundation in fact for his contentions that (1) counsel was not made available to him in denial of his requests when he pleaded guilty at a preliminary hearing to two indictments charging him with burglary and larceny; (2) he was subjected to “intimidation, threats and coercion” in an effort to extract his confession ; (3) he was not adequately represented by court-appointed counsel when his case came on for trial and he pleaded guilty; (4) he was held incommunicado from the time of his arrest until his trial and his requests to communicate with his family and friends were denied; and (5) he was later denied a transcript of the proceedings at which he was sentenced.

The record discloses that the appellant was given a full hearing on his application for a writ of habeas corpus, based on the grounds stated, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, at which he was represented by court-appointed counsel; that the state court denied the writ and its action was affirmed by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

We find no error in the District Court’s holding that the relator’s contentions “are without foundation in fact”.

The Order of the District Court denying the writ will be affirmed.

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

Related

United States Ex Rel. Reid v. Dunham
481 F. Supp. 366 (E.D. New York, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
369 F.2d 807, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-of-america-ex-rel-william-j-steele-jr-v-james-f-ca3-1966.