United States v. Hardy

Second Circuit

United States v. Hardy

252 F.2d 780

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided January 31, 1958·No. No. 169, Docket 24792·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the opinion of Judge Cashin, D.C., 159 F.Supp. 208. As to appellant’s claim of ineffective legal representation before sentence in that his counsel refused to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we also point out that a direct appeal does not lie from the denial of such a motion made after indictment. Cogen v. United States, 278 U.S. 221, 49 S.Ct. 118, 73 L.Ed. 275; Carroll v. United States, 354 U.S. 394, 404, 77 S.Ct. 1332, 1 L.Ed.2d 1442.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the opinion of Judge Cashin, D.C., 159 F.Supp. 208. As to appellant’s claim of ineffective legal representation before sentence in that his counsel refused to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we also point out that a direct appeal does not lie from the denial of such a motion made after indictment. Cogen v. United States, 278 U.S. 221, 49 S.Ct. 118, 73 L.Ed. 275; Carroll v. United States, 354 U.S. 394, 404, 77 S.Ct. 1332, 1 L.Ed.2d 1442.

United States v. Hardy, 252 F.2d 780 (2d Cir. 1958).

Pincite

252 F.2d 780 (United States v. Hardy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related