TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Cecil D. Mays v. United States

Cecil D. MAYS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Mays v. United States, 216 F.2d 186 (10th Cir. 1954)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 12, 1954
Docket
No. 4940
Judges
Per Curiam, Phillips, Pickett, Ritter
Citations
216 F.2d 1861954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2948

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court of Kansas, denying appellant’s motion to vacate, a judgment and sentence entered in that court without a hearing. The motion was treated as having been filed under: 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 . Appellant entered ,a plea of guilty to an indictment charging him with the unlawful possession of narcotics in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 2553 (a). Upon a plea of guilty, he was sentenced to serve a term of five years in prison.

The- motion alleges that the judgment and sentence is void because appellant was deprived of effective aid and assistance of counsel; that the attorney, George Haley, who appeared with the appellant at the time the plea of guilty was entered, was not admitted to prac*tice in the State and Federal Courts of Kansas; and that the attorney'induced *187 him to enter a plea of guilty by trickery and fraud. The record does not disclose whether the attorney was appointed by the court or was of the appellant’s own selection. The record does not contain a transcript of the proceedings at the time the plea was entered. The judgment and sentence recite that the defendant was represented “by counsel George Haley for Myles Stevens”. We do not mean to indicate that a prisoner is entitled to a hearing on a motion filed under Section 2255 in all cases where it is alleged that he received ineffective aid and assistance of counsel, but under the allegations of this motion we believe that the appellant should be entitled to show all the facts and circumstances concerning the representation which he had at the time he entered his plea of guilty. Wheatley v. United States, 10 Cir., 198 F.2d 325 .

The order denying the motion without a hearing is reversed, and the cause is remanded with instructions to grant a hearing on the motion.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1955: 11956: 21957: 11958: 11961: 11963: 11989: 119552026peak 1956 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Roosevelt Mitchell v. United States259 F.2d 787 (D.C. Cir. 1958)
  2. The PEOPLE v. Cox146 N.E.2d 19 (Ill. 1957)
  3. Emil Richard Yates v. United States316 F.2d 718 (10th Cir. 1963)
  4. United States v. Robert Bradford238 F.2d 395 (2d Cir. 1956)
  5. Bernard H. Frand v. United States289 F.2d 693 (10th Cir. 1961)
  6. People v. Elvart545 N.E.2d 331 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989)

Most recent

  1. People v. Elvart545 N.E.2d 331 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989)
  2. Emil Richard Yates v. United States316 F.2d 718 (10th Cir. 1963)
  3. Bernard H. Frand v. United States289 F.2d 693 (10th Cir. 1961)
  4. Roosevelt Mitchell v. United States259 F.2d 787 (D.C. Cir. 1958)
  5. The PEOPLE v. Cox146 N.E.2d 19 (Ill. 1957)
  6. United States v. Robert Bradford238 F.2d 395 (2d Cir. 1956)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Wheatley v. United States, 198 F.2d 325 (10th Cir. 1952) 15

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list