FRANK M. RICH, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE

4th Cir. | 1968-06-13
No. 11619
447 F.2d 990 United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (1968)
Cited by 1 case

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 held that the district court properly denied the motion to vacate sentence.


Facts & Procedural History

Frank M. Rich, convicted of kidnapping, sought to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, raising several issues. After hearings and a lengthy opi…

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.

Frank M. Rich, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal an order of the District Court (Hoffman, J.) denying his motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In 1958 Rich was convicted by a jury of kidnapping and was sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, this court affirmed. Rich v. United States, 261 F. 2d 536 (4th Cir.) cert. den. 359 U.S. 946, 79 S.Ct. 731, 3 L.Ed.2d 678 (1958).

In 1963 Rich petitioned the District Court for § 2255 relief, raising some new issues and repeating many raised in his direct appeal. The district judge appointed counsel, and, after several pretrial conferences, the issues were limited to four:

(1) Was court appointed counsel adequate at trial;

(2) Was there an adequate record on appeal;

(3) Was Rich prejudiced by permitting the jury to separate at trial; and

(4) Did the court err by propounding certain voir dire questions?

In July of 1965 the court summoned the surviving jurors and held a hearing on the third issue raised. Eleven jurors were gathered, and were each questioned by Rich’s attorneys.

Then, in July of 1966, Rich was given a full hearing on the balance of his contentions, and, in a lengthy opinion, 330 F.Supp. 949, the district court denied relief. We have reviewed the transcripts of both hearings, of Rich’s trial, and of various mesne proceedings connected with this litigation and agree that relief was properly denied for the reasons stated in the opinion of the District Court.

The appeal is dismissed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw