TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Charles Joseph Battaglia, Jr. v. United States

Charles Joseph BATTAGLIA, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee

Battaglia v. United States, 469 F.2d 686 (9th Cir. 1972)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 20, 1972
Docket
No. 72-2214
Judges
Hamley, Duniway, Choy
Citations
469 F.2d 686

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Charles Battaglia, a federal prisoner, appeals a district court order denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . We affirm.

In 1967 he was convicted of violating 19 U.S.C. § 1951 (The Hobbs Act). He alleges that during the trial he was under the influence of drugs and therefore was incompetent to assist in his own defense and to confront his accusers. He also alleges that failure by his two attorneys to raise this issue at trial, thus preserving it in the record on appeal, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.

The incompetency claim was previously before this court on a § 2255 motion and adjudicated adversely to Battaglia. Battaglia v. United States, 428 F.2d 957 (9th Cir. 1970). The present § 2255 petition does not allege any new facts which would call for a hearing. Where a second § 2255 application is shown, on the basis of the application, files, and records clearly to be without merit, as here, the district court properly denied the application without a hearing. Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 15 , 83 S.Ct. 1068 , 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963).

The claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is frivolous. The record indicates that the two attorneys were able and experienced and were highly commended by the trial judge at the close of trial. The trial judge was aware of Battaglia’s physical condition, and was constantly observing him. If the issue of Battaglia’s incompetency had any merit, it would have been raised by counsel, or the court would have stopped the progress of the trial.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1975: 11978: 11982: 119752026peak 1975 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Martin Stern519 F.2d 521 (9th Cir. 1975)
  2. United States v. Hearst466 F. Supp. 1068 (N.D. Cal. 1978)
  3. United States v. Aguero534 F. Supp. 486 (N.D. Cal. 1982)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Aguero534 F. Supp. 486 (N.D. Cal. 1982)
  2. United States v. Hearst466 F. Supp. 1068 (N.D. Cal. 1978)
  3. United States v. Martin Stern519 F.2d 521 (9th Cir. 1975)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1 (1963) 2,200
Battaglia v. United States, 428 F.2d 957 (9th Cir. 1970) 9

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