United States v. Frazier Eaton

416 F.2d 22, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10783
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 16, 1969
Docket23152
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 416 F.2d 22 (United States v. Frazier Eaton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Frazier Eaton, 416 F.2d 22, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10783 (9th Cir. 1969).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant’s third motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, denied without a hearing by the District Court, presents two claims:

His claim respecting right to appeal was given a hearing in 1964 and was decided adversely to him. Eaton v. United States, 348 F.2d 919 (9th Cir. 1965). Section 2255 by its terms provides that “[a] successive motion for similar relief” need not be entertained. See Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963).

However, his claim of inadequate representation due to counsel’s *23 failure to subpoena an important witness has not yet been squarely met on the merits. See Eaton v. United States, 384 F.2d 235 (9th Cir. 1967). In his present motion he has, in our view, finally alleged facts warranting a hearing on this claim. The fact that his trial counsel requested the return of the subpoena unexecuted is not conclusive on this issue since his counsel’s loyalty and competence have been placed in question.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Frazier Eaton v. United States
437 F.2d 362 (Ninth Circuit, 1971)
Jerry Spencer Diamond v. United States
432 F.2d 35 (Ninth Circuit, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
416 F.2d 22, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-frazier-eaton-ca9-1969.