TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

John Allen Kendrick v. United States

John Allen KENDRICK, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Kendrick v. United States, 252 F.2d 860 (D.C. Cir. 1958)
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
February 27, 1958
Docket
No. 14149
Judges
Prettyman, Washington, Burger
Citations
252 F.2d 860102 U.S. App. D.C. 2961958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3794

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

In 1956 appellant was convicted and sentenced for assault with a deadly weapon. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, Kendrick v. United States, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 173 , 238 F.2d 34 (1956). On motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , filed a year after the sentence, appellant raises for the first time the claim that he was denied the right to accompany the jury to view the premises where the crime took place. The District Court denied the motion after a hearing.

Whatever may be the nature of the right of an accused to be personally present during a view, 1

the record discloses that appellant’s absence from the view was the decision of his retained counsel, 2

as a matter of trial strategy, and that appellant made no effort at the trial or on the direct appeal to raise the point. Under the circumstances, we think that appellant was not entitled to relief under Section 2255. See Adams v. United States, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 354 , 222 F.2d 45 (1955); Martin v. United States, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 412 , 248 F.2d 651 (1957); Moore v. United States, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 412 , 249 F.2d 504 (1957).

Affirmed.

1

. See Fed.it.Crim.P. 43, 18 U.S.C., wiiicii states “The defendant shall be present * * * at every stage of the trial * * I!.” But cf. Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 , 54 S.Ct. 330 , 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934), decided before the Federal Buies were promulgated.

2

. Trial counsel who was selected and engaged by appellant for his trial and prior appeal has been replaced by counsel appointed by the District Court to repre-ent him in the instant Section 2255 proceedings.

How later courts describe this case

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

1961: 11962: 119612026peak 1961 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. James G. Burley v. United States295 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1961)
  2. Fred Stein v. United States313 F.2d 518 (9th Cir. 1962)

Most recent

  1. Fred Stein v. United States313 F.2d 518 (9th Cir. 1962)
  2. James G. Burley v. United States295 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1961)

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 5

DepthCaseCited by
Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (1934) 2,304
Moore v. United States, 249 F.2d 504 (D.C. Cir. 1957) 4
Adams v. United States, 222 F.2d 45 (D.C. Cir. 1955) 45
Kendrick v. United States, 238 F.2d 34 (D.C. Cir. 1956) 24
Martin v. United States, 248 F.2d 651 (D.C. Cir. 1957) 13

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