William D. Messamore v. United States

Sixth Circuit

William D. Messamore v. United States

209 F.2d 258, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3153

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedDecember 9, 1953

Docket11902_1

StatusPublished

This text of 209 F.2d 258 (William D. Messamore v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

William D. Messamore v. United States, 209 F.2d 258, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3153 (6th Cir. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

*259 PER CURIAM.

Appellant, who was convicted by jury verdict of bank robbery and sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment, charges that he has been deprived of his constitutional rights guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment, in that the attorney selected and employed by him failed to represent him faithfully. Appellant does not charge that the attorney did not adequately represent him during the trial, but insists that, after conviction of appellant, the attorney was delinquent in respect to appealing the case.

We do not find the charge justified upon the record; and, accordingly, the order of the district court denying the motion of appellant to vacate the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

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

*259 PER CURIAM.

Appellant, who was convicted by jury verdict of bank robbery and sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment, charges that he has been deprived of his constitutional rights guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment, in that the attorney selected and employed by him failed to represent him faithfully. Appellant does not charge that the attorney did not adequately represent him during the trial, but insists that, after conviction of appellant, the attorney was delinquent in respect to appealing the case.

We do not find the charge justified upon the record; and, accordingly, the order of the district court denying the motion of appellant to vacate the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 F.2d 258, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-d-messamore-v-united-states-ca6-1953.