Veron Atchley, and v. Fred R. Dickson, Warden, And

Ninth Circuit

Veron Atchley, and v. Fred R. Dickson, Warden, And

338 F.2d 1014

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 18, 1964

Docket19201_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 338 F.2d 1014 (Veron Atchley, and v. Fred R. Dickson, Warden, And) 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

Veron Atchley, and v. Fred R. Dickson, Warden, And, 338 F.2d 1014 (9th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This cause came on to be heard on the record on appeal from an order of the. United States District Court for the-Northern District of California dismissing without hearing appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and was-argued by counsel. The record shows-that at all times during appellant’s state-trial and appeal he was represented by counsel, and that he participated as a. witness in the trial. On appeal the State-Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, People v. Atchley, 53 Cal.2d 160, 346 P.2d. 764 (1959), and thereafter certiorari was. granted by the United States Supreme-Court. After briefs were filed therein and oral argument was heard, the United States Supreme Court entered the following order:

“After hearing oral argument and fully examining the record, we conclude that the totality of circumstances as the record makes them manifest did not warrant bringing the case here. Accordingly, the writ is dismissed.” Atchley v. California, 366 U.S. 207, 81 S.Ct. 1051, 6 L.Ed.2d 233 (1961).

We find no lack of due process.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This cause came on to be heard on the record on appeal from an order of the. United States District Court for the-Northern District of California dismissing without hearing appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and was-argued by counsel. The record shows-that at all times during appellant’s state-trial and appeal he was represented by counsel, and that he participated as a. witness in the trial. On appeal the State-Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, People v. Atchley, 53 Cal.2d 160, 346 P.2d. 764 (1959), and thereafter certiorari was. granted by the United States Supreme-Court. After briefs were filed therein and oral argument was heard, the United States Supreme Court entered the following order:

“After hearing oral argument and fully examining the record, we conclude that the totality of circumstances as the record makes them manifest did not warrant bringing the case here. Accordingly, the writ is dismissed.” Atchley v. California, 366 U.S. 207, 81 S.Ct. 1051, 6 L.Ed.2d 233 (1961).

We find no lack of due process.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

338 F.2d 1014, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/veron-atchley-and-v-fred-r-dickson-warden-and-ca9-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack