LOUIS PEREZ CERDA, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE

9th Cir. | 1970-04-29
No. 24327
424 F.2d 544 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1970) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases

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.


Holding

The court affirmed the district court's denial of the defendant's motion.


Facts & Procedural History

The defendant was convicted of drug offenses after refusing a plea bargain and was represented by the same attorney at trial and on appeal. He later f…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Cerda played Russian Roulette with his chances, and lost. A three count indictment charged violations of Title 21 U.S.C. Sec. 174 and 26 U.S.C. Sec. 4705 (a) (1964), the crimes of concealing and selling a narcotic drug, namely heroin, and selling a narcotic drug, namely heroin, without a proper form issued for that purpose. The U. S. Attorney offered a plea to a lesser offense, a “tax count”, which appellant refused, contrary to the advice of his counsel, and elected to stand trial. The jury convicted him upon two of the three counts, and he was sentenced to two concurrent ten year sentences, the mandatory minimum under the circumstances. Upon appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the conviction, per curiam, was affirmed. Cerda v. United States, 391 F. 2d 219 (9th Cir. 1968). Appellant was represented at trial and upon appeal by the same attorney.

The present proceeding originated as a motion filed by appellant under 2255. The district court, by order, denied the motion without hearing for the reason it was apparent appellant was entitled to no relief. Cerda appeals this order. We have given careful consideration to the briefs and have examined appellant’s contentions with care. We do not find any to be well taken or to merit discussion here.

The order of the district court is affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw