THOMAS J. PATTERSON, #92810, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT-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 factual findings by the district court are binding on the court of appeals unless clearly erroneous.
Appellant sought to vacate his conviction for escape, alleging his court-appointed counsel failed to request a psychiatric examination due to incompet…
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 "Clearly Erroneous" Standard Of Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Patterson filed a habeas corpus petition in the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1970) seeking to have his previous conviction of escaping from federal custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751 (1970) set aside. As a basis for relief, appellant contended that his court-appointed counsel had refrained from requesting the court to have him examined for possible insanity at the time of his escape. Because of the alleged incompetence of counsel, appellant contended that he had been denied due process of law. ■
The district court conducted a hearing to ascertain the facts surrounding appellant’s claims. Appellant and two witnesses testified that appellant had indeed requested counsel to seek a psychiatric examination. Court-appointed counsel denied ever receiving such a request. Crediting the counsel’s testimony, the district court denied relief.
We affirm. Factual questions must be determined by the district court, and unless clearly erroneous are binding on the court of appeals. See United States v. Strother, 458 F. 2d 424, 430 (5th Cir. 1972). Since this case falls within the well established rule,, we are bound to affirm the district court’s determinations of the factual issues.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jurek v. Estelle, 623 F.2d 929 (5th Cir. 1980)
-
Am. Fed'n OF Labor & Cong. OF Indus. Orgs. v. Marshall, 617 F.2d 636 (D.C. Cir. 1979)
-
Son H. Fleming v. Kemp, 748 F.2d 1435 (11th Cir. 1984)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Obie Diah Strother, 458 F.2d 424 (5th Cir. 1972)