United States v. Sumpter

Second Circuit

United States v. Sumpter

228 F.2d 290

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 20, 1955

DocketNo. 72, Docket 23659

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 228 F.2d 290 (United States v. Sumpter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second 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. Sumpter, 228 F.2d 290 (2d Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s several attempts to secure vacation of his sentence of five years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to violate the narcotic laws have presented variations of the same theme, namely, that the attorney of his own choosing and employment did not properly represent him or safeguard his interests at the three-day trial which led to the jury verdict against him. The voluminous record does not bear out this charge. Nevertheless, Judge Weinfeld, the trial judge, granted him a full hearing, at which both he and the attorney testified at length; and then the judge wrote a careful and reasoned opinion denying the motion. United States v. Sumpter, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 111 F.Supp. 507. Thereafter he has patiently considered and decided several applications for a rehearing. Appellant has had much more than an adequate hearing of a claim which is fundamentally without merit.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s several attempts to secure vacation of his sentence of five years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to violate the narcotic laws have presented variations of the same theme, namely, that the attorney of his own choosing and employment did not properly represent him or safeguard his interests at the three-day trial which led to the jury verdict against him. The voluminous record does not bear out this charge. Nevertheless, Judge Weinfeld, the trial judge, granted him a full hearing, at which both he and the attorney testified at length; and then the judge wrote a careful and reasoned opinion denying the motion. United States v. Sumpter, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 111 F.Supp. 507. Thereafter he has patiently considered and decided several applications for a rehearing. Appellant has had much more than an adequate hearing of a claim which is fundamentally without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 F.2d 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-sumpter-ca2-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack