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
George James Cook, Petitioner-appellant, v. United States of America, Respondent-appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 549 F.2d 1001
March 31, 1977
Alan S. Gover, Houston, Tex., for petitioner-appellant.
Edward B. McDonough, Jr., U. S. Atty., James R. Gough, George A. Kelt, Jr., John T. Johnson, Asst. U. S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for respondent-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before SIMPSON, GEE and HILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, George Cook, presently appeals to this Court from the order of the District Court for the Southern District of Texas denying, on remand, his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief.
In Cook v. United States, 521 F.2d 875 (5th Cir. 1975), we reversed the District Court for failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the issue of whether appellant's pleas of guilty were vitiated by the alleged misleading advice of counsel.
Appellant contends that his court-appointed counsel misled him into believing that if he pled guilty to narcotics charges, then he, a narcotic addict, would have immediately begun service of his sentence at a federal narcotics treatment center rather than being returned to state authorities for trial on state charges. Cook contends that he was in the process of withdrawal from heroin addiction when his pleas were entered and that his reliance on the allegedly misleading advice rendered his pleas involuntary and the assistance of his counsel ineffective.
On remand, the District Court held an evidentiary hearing, and found that the pleas were voluntarily entered, and that appellant's counsel rendered him effective assistance. Though there was conflicting evidence, we are of the opinion that the findings of the trial judge are not clearly erroneous.
Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is
AFFIRMED.