Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Robert D. Phelps v. United States, 335 F.2d 547, 10th Cir. (1964)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views1 page
    Robert Phelps appealed the denial of his motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255 for entering a federally insured bank with intent to commit larceny. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, finding that Phelps received adequate counsel and his other claims of insufficient evidence, errors in jury instructions, and questions from the trial court were not proper grounds to challenge his conviction under a Section 2255 motion, as they pertained only to alleged trial errors.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1964-08-04 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 335 F.2d 547 Docket: 7765_1

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Robert Phelps appealed the denial of his motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255 for entering a federally insured bank with intent to commit larceny. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, finding that Phelps received adequate counsel and his other claims of insufficient evidence, errors in jury instructions, and questions from the trial court were not proper grounds to challenge his conviction under a Section 2255 motion, as they pertained only to alleged trial errors.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    3 views1 page

    Robert D. Phelps v. United States, 335 F.2d 547, 10th Cir. (1964)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Robert Phelps appealed the denial of his motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255 for entering a federally insured bank with intent to commit larceny. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, finding that Phelps received adequate counsel and his other claims of insufficient evidence, errors in jury instructions, and questions from the trial court were not proper grounds to challenge his conviction under a Section 2255 motion, as they pertained only to alleged trial errors.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 1

    335 F.

    2d 547

    Robert D. PHELPS, Appellant,


    v.
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
    No. 7765.

    United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.


    Aug. 4, 1964.

    Thomas W. Whittington, for appellant.


    Phillips Breckingridge, Asst. U.S. Atty. (John M. Imel, U.S. Atty., was
    with him on the brief), for appellee.
    Before LEWIS, BREITENSTEIN and SETH, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.

    Appellant is presently serving a sentence imposed upon him after being found
    guilty of entering a federally insured bank with intent to commit larceny in
    violation of 18 U.S.C. 2113(a). By motion filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255 he now
    seeks to attack the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction, asserts
    error in the court's instructions to the jury and claims error and prejudice from
    designated questions asked by the trial court during the course of the trial. He
    also contends he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at the trial. The
    trial court denied relief.

    We affirm the judgment. Our review of the record indicates appellant received
    adequate representation from counsel. His remaining contentions pertain only
    to claimed trial errors and are not properly raised under section 2255. Carrillo v.
    United States, 10 Cir., 332 F.2d 202; Johnston v. United States, 10 Cir., 331
    F.2d 997; Fennell v. United States, 10 Cir., 313 F.2d 941.

    You might also like