Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 views

    Earnest Williamson v. R. Michael Cody, 69 F.3d 549, 10th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254 by Earnest Williamson. The district court had dismissed Williamson's petition, which claimed he received inadequate legal counsel due to being misinformed about receiving a concurrent sentence at his arraignment. However, the district court found the record from Williamson's state court proceeding did not support this claim, as Williamson had stated during his arraignment that no promises had been made to him regarding receiving anything less than the maximum sentence or a concurrent sentence. The Tenth Circuit agrees with the district court's assessment and affirms the dismissal of Williamson's petition.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Earnest Williamson v. R. Michael Cody, 69 F.3d 549, 10th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254 by Earnest Williamson. The district court had dismissed Williamson's petition, which claimed he received inadequate legal counsel due to being misinformed about receiving a concurrent sentence at his arraignment. However, the district court found the record from Williamson's state court proceeding did not support this claim, as Williamson had stated during his arraignment that no promises had been made to him regarding receiving anything less than the maximum sentence or a concurrent sentence. The Tenth Circuit agrees with the district court's assessment and affirms the dismissal of Williamson's petition.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1995-07-06 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 69 F.3d 549 Docket: 95-6087

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254 by Earnest Williamson. The district court had dismissed Williamson's petition, which claimed he received inadequate legal counsel due to being misinformed about receiving a concurrent sentence at his arraignment. However, the district court found the record from Williamson's state court proceeding did not support this claim, as Williamson had stated during his arraignment that no promises had been made to him regarding receiving anything less than the maximum sentence or a concurrent sentence. The Tenth Circuit agrees with the district court's assessment and affirms the dismissal of Williamson's petition.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    10 views2 pages

    Earnest Williamson v. R. Michael Cody, 69 F.3d 549, 10th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254 by Earnest Williamson. The district court had dismissed Williamson's petition, which claimed he received inadequate legal counsel due to being misinformed about receiving a concurrent sentence at his arraignment. However, the district court found the record from Williamson's state court proceeding did not support this claim, as Williamson had stated during his arraignment that no promises had been made to him regarding receiving anything less than the maximum sentence or a concurrent sentence. The Tenth Circuit agrees with the district court's assessment and affirms the dismissal of Williamson's petition.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    69 F.

    3d 549
    NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
    unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
    material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
    argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
    November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
    further order.

    Earnest WILLIAMSON, Petitioner-Appellant,


    v.
    R. Michael CODY, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 95-6087.

    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.


    July 6, 1995.

    Before MOORE, BARRETT, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT1


    1

    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
    of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

    This is an appeal from an order dismissing a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254.


    Contrary to petitioner's claim he was denied adequate representation of counsel
    because of improper advice at the time of arraignment, the district court found
    otherwise. Petitioner contended he was advised by counsel the sentence for the
    crime to which he entered a plea of guilty would run concurrently with a prior
    sentence, but the district court found the record of the state proceeding did not
    support that contention.

    From the state record of the arraignment, the district court found petitioner was
    asked by the court whether anyone had promised him his sentence would be
    "anything less than the maximum," and whether he had been promised the

    sentencing court "would run the sentence concurrent with any other sentence."
    To both of these questions, petitioner answered "No." He further told the state
    court he understood it had not at that time "determined what an appropriate
    sentence would be."
    4

    We agree with the district court these admissions completely belie petitioner's
    basic contention he was misinformed he was entitled to a concurrent sentence.
    The application for certificate of probable cause is GRANTED, and the
    judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
    law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally
    disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and
    judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of the court's General
    Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470

    You might also like