William Eugene Beard v. United States

Sixth Circuit

William Eugene Beard v. United States

456 F.2d 1289, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10553

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMarch 23, 1972

Docket71-1747

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 456 F.2d 1289 (William Eugene Beard 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 Eugene Beard v. United States, 456 F.2d 1289, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10553 (6th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We consider an appeal from the denial of a writ of error coram nobis. See United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed 248 (1954). Appellant is currently incarcerated in a penal institution of the State of Tennessee, but he is subject to concurrent federal sentences of 5, 10, and 50 years imposed after his convictions of conspiracy, receiving and concealing proceeds of bank robberies, and murder. The petition points out that appellant’s defense attorney had conflicting interests because he represented one of appellant’s co-indictees, John W. Lee-man, who testified for the government at appellant’s trial.

The District Court reviewed the trial record, which reveals that the issues presented by this petition were fully explored at trial, and found no prejudice. We have considered the record and the opinion of this court in United States v. Etheridge, 424 F.2d 951 (6th Cir. 1970), and we determine that the District Court’s holding that there was no denial of the effective assistance of counsel is correct. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is hereby affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We consider an appeal from the denial of a writ of error coram nobis. See United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed 248 (1954). Appellant is currently incarcerated in a penal institution of the State of Tennessee, but he is subject to concurrent federal sentences of 5, 10, and 50 years imposed after his convictions of conspiracy, receiving and concealing proceeds of bank robberies, and murder. The petition points out that appellant’s defense attorney had conflicting interests because he represented one of appellant’s co-indictees, John W. Lee-man, who testified for the government at appellant’s trial.

The District Court reviewed the trial record, which reveals that the issues presented by this petition were fully explored at trial, and found no prejudice. We have considered the record and the opinion of this court in United States v. Etheridge, 424 F.2d 951 (6th Cir. 1970), and we determine that the District Court’s holding that there was no denial of the effective assistance of counsel is correct. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is hereby affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

456 F.2d 1289, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-eugene-beard-v-united-states-ca6-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack