THEODORE JAMES WEINREICH, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the petitioner failed to present factual matters requiring a hearing and that the grounds urged were either waived or previously decided adversely.
Petitioner was convicted of bank robbery and his conviction was affirmed. He later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 alleging solitary confinement…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Solitary Confinement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from the denial of a motion made under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Petitioner was convicted of bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113). He appealed and his conviction was affirmed. Dear-inger v. United States, 344 F. 2d 309 (9th Cir. 1955).
Thereafter, the trial court conducted a full evidentiary hearing on petitioner’s motion for new trial on newly discovered evidence. This was denied.
This petition alleged that he was held in “solitary confinement” prior to his trial, and was denied a motion for a continuance ten days before his trial. Neither of such grounds was urged on appeal. He also charged that he was inadequately represented by counsel at his trial, an issue raised on his appeal (but not at his trial) and decided adversely to him on appeal. 344 F. 2d 309 at 313.
The two grounds urged here for the first time are stated in general conclu-sionary terms. Petitioner fails to specify facts concerning the mode of his custody, or how it affected his relations with his counsel or how he or his counsel were affected in presenting his de fense. His complaint as to a continuance was not properly raised at his trial, nor at all on his appeal, and he has waived it.
Thus the appellant has presented no factual matters that require a hearing; hence no hearing was required. The district court carefully examined the transcript of petitioner’s trial proceedings, and found no error. We affirm the district court’s conclusion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Houser v. United States, 508 F.2d 509 (8th Cir. 1974)
Authorities Cited
- Dearinger v. United States, 344 F.2d 309 (9th Cir. 1965)