Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

VAUGHAN v. UNITED STATES

November 8, 1986

HUBERT A. VAUGHAN, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent



The opinion of the court was delivered by: COOPER

IRVING BEN COOPER, D. J.

Petitioner seeks the appointment of counsel, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006 A(g) (1982), together with a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1982) asserting various violations of the Constitution.

 FACTS

 Petitioner was arrested on April 6, 1969 for conspiring to rob a bank and for committing the robbery there while using a firearm. Petitioner was convicted before Judge Cannella on all counts and on December 17, 1969 was sentenced to a maximum term of 25 years; Judge Cannella on April 20, 1970 reduced this term to a maximum of 15 years.

 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3568 (1982) petitioner was credited through the office of the U.S. Attorney General with 225 "Jail Credit Days" served prior to the imposition of the sentence. (Sentence Computation Records, Petitioner's Exhibits A, B)

 The Second Circuit on April 19, 1971 reversed petitioner's conviction and remanded for a new trial. United States v. Vaughan, 443 F.2d 92 (2d Cir. 1971). Petitioner, in a jury trial before us was again convicted of all charges and was sentenced on August 5, 1971 to 15 years; said conviction affirmed in open court by the Second Circuit on November 8, 1972.

 APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

 The decision of whether to appoint counsel includes factors such as

 the likelihood of success on the merits, the complexity of the legal issues raised by the complaint and the ability of the indigent (here, petitioner) to investigate and present the case. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1983); Wilson v. Duckworth, 716 F.2d 415 (7th Cir. 1983).

 Shaird v. Scully, 610 F. Supp. 442, 444 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).

 It is clear that the legal issues raised in the instant proceeding are not complicated, do not require involved inquiry and have little to no likelihood of success.

 Accordingly, under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (g) (1982) we hold that the interests of justice in this case do not require appointment of counsel for petitioner.

 PETITIONER'S CLAIMS

 Petitioner, by the instant application, asserts entitlement to relief on the following grounds: violation of the double jeopardy clause, denial of due ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.