TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

James M. Irby v. United States

James M. IRBY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Irby v. United States, 246 F.2d 706 (D.C. Cir. 1957)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
September 11, 1957
Docket
No. 13610_1
Judges
Miller, Fahy, Burger
Citations
246 F.2d 706

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

James M. Irby was indicted July 13, 1953, for murder in the first degree. Counsel was appointed for him July 20, 1953, and four days later he entered a plea of not guilty. October 8,1953, still represented by the same appointed counsel, Irby withdraw his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty to manslaughter. Thereupon the District Court sentenced him to imprisonment for a term of from 5 to 15 years. He has since been and is now serving the sentence. July o, 1956, Irby filed a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , which the sentencing court promptly denied. This appeal is from the order of denial.

The appellant apparently argues that he could not lawfully be sentenced on a plea, of guilty to manslaughter when he had been indicted for murder in the first degree. He says he was wrongfully deprived of a jury trial at which he could have proved that he acted in self defense; that his appointed counsel was ineffective and “railroaded” him to prison because counsel had swindled him, in a civil suit. He invokes the Fifth Amendment to protect him from the consequences of his guilty plea.

If appellant was dissatisfied with his assigned counsel because of the old grudge to which he now refers, he had ample time between the two pleas to complain of the appointment; had he done so, no doubt a substitute would have been appointed. He accepted the aid of counsel who induced the Government to accept a plea under the included offense of manslaughter rather than first degree murder. We have considered all of appellant’s arguments and conclude that his appeal is wholly lacking in merit.

Affirmed.

FAHY, Circuit Judge, concurs in the result.

How later courts describe this case

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

1966: 11970: 11973: 119662026peak 1966 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Ernesto Carmona422 F.2d 95 (3d Cir. 1970)
  2. United States v. Bennie L. Peterson483 F.2d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 1973)
  3. Dupin v. Commonwealth408 S.W.2d 443 (Ky. Ct. App. 1966)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Bennie L. Peterson483 F.2d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 1973)
  2. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Ernesto Carmona422 F.2d 95 (3d Cir. 1970)
  3. Dupin v. Commonwealth408 S.W.2d 443 (Ky. Ct. App. 1966)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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