Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Thomas J. Patterson, 92810 v. United States
487 F.2d 341
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1973-11-09
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- convergence between "substantial evidence" and "arbitrary or capricious" criteria
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Thomas J. Patterson, 92810 v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 5 opinions
Appellant Patterson filed a habeas corpus petition in the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1970) seeking to have his previous conviction of escaping from federal custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751 (1970) set aside. As a basis for relief, appellant contended that his court-appointed counsel had refrained from requesting the court to have him examined for possible insanity at the time of his escape. Because of the alleged incompetence of counsel, appellant contended that he had been denied due process of law. ■
The district court conducted a hearing to ascertain the facts surrounding appellant’s claims. Appellant and two witnesses testified that appellant had indeed requested counsel to seek a psychiatric examination. Court-appointed counsel denied ever receiving such a request. Crediting the counsel’s testimony, the district court denied relief.
We affirm. Factual questions must be determined by the district court, and unless clearly erroneous are binding on the court of appeals. See United States v. Strother, 458 F.2d 424, 430 (5th Cir. 1972). Since this case falls within the well established rule,, we are bound to affirm the district court’s determinations of the factual issues.
Affirmed.