United States v. Roosevelt Linden O'DOnnell

260 F.2d 232, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3067

Opinion

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge.

Appellant has appealed from a judgment of the district court denying apPlant's motion under § 2255 1 to vacate sentence upon conviction for bank robbery. 2

The only error assigned which merits our serious consideration is that his court-appointed counsel was ineffective, Appellant supports this charge by pointing out that counsel also represented appellant’s wife, who participated in the bank robbery, and that her father was present at the trial, paid said counsel a fee, and assisted counsel in her defense,

These facts, if true, do not support the charge of ineffectiveness. Moreover, we find in the record no evidence to support that charge.

. , „ ,, ..... judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

1 . 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.

2 . 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a) and (e).