Legal Opinion

Howard D. Mitchell v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided October 8, 1970No. 194-70PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

The district court denied appellant Mitchell’s petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 without an evidentiary hearing. A jury found him guilty of three counts charging mail fraud. He did not appeal from the sentence pronounced.

The sole ground asserted for relief is; “inadequacy of counsel (under the influence of alcohol at the time of trial).” The counsel was retained. In an affidavit supporting the petition, the appellant said that the condition was shown by counsel’s confusion as to the name of a prosecuting witness on three occasions, and by his failure to call a witness. During the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bernard Herman Frand v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1962
  2. Wheatley v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1952
  3. Benny Peoples v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1966

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Weldon Kelley Lorraine v. United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1971
  2. United States v. Carl Victor CarterCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1970
  3. Bradshaw v. State of OklahomaDistrict Court, E.D. Oklahoma · 1975
  4. Walter v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 1974
  5. United States v. HomanDistrict Court, E.D. Oklahoma · 1977

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API