Case Resources
Search this Case
in
Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN
Web Search
Yahoo!
Web Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google
Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Ivory Wilson, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. - 338 F.2d 54
October 23, 1964
Edward Michael Riordan, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
William N. Goodwin, U. S. Atty., Gerald W. Hess, Asst. U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for appellee.
Before ORR, JERTBERG and MERRILL, Circuit Judges.
MERRILL, Circuit Judge.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1958) appellant moved to vacate and set aside judgment of conviction on three counts of violation of the narcotics laws. His motion was denied without hearing by the District Court for the Western District of Washington and he has taken this appeal.
Sole ground for relief is that contrary to his instructions his trial counsel failed to take an appeal from judgment. Accordingly under Rules 37(a) (2) and 45 (b) F.R.Cr.P., his right to appeal was lost. United States v. Robinson (1960) 361 U.S. 220, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259. He asserts that this has resulted in a loss of a basic constitutional right for which loss he is entitled to a remedy under § 2255. As support for his contention he relies upon Dodd v. United States, (9 Cir. 1963) 321 F.2d 240.
That case is distinguishable. There the petition set forth numerous allegations of error and of matters occurring on trial which, if proved, might be deemed a denial of basic rights. There are no allegations of such prejudice here. Indeed, the petition alleges no error whatsoever.
Affirmed.