Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Ralph McFalls v. C. C. Peyton, Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary

401 F.2d 890

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1968-10-29
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: Court-assigned counsel in this habeas corpus case has earnestly presented claims of constitutional deprivation in the circumstances under which the defendant was. brought to trial in the state court and in trial counsel’s failure to make a number of objections, which the habeas attorney thinks should have been interposed. We find no such deprivations in the record, however, for, in general, there was a rational basis for what trial counsel did and refrained from doing. His performance was far from the low level, which, in the constitutional sense, is the equivalent of a denial of counsel. Affirmed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Ralph McFalls v. C. C. Peyton, Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
15 opinions
McFALLS v. PEYTON,401 F.2d 890(4th Cir. 1968)
Ralph McFALLS, Appellant, v. C.C. PEYTON, Superintendent of the Virginia
State Penitentiary, Appellee,
No. 11567.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued June 21, 1968.
Decided October 29, 1968.
Arch Wallace, III, Richmond, Va., court-assigned counsel (Sands, Anderson, Marks Clarke, Richmond, Va., on the brief), for appellant.

Overton P. Pollard, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Virginia (Robert Y. Button, Atty. Gen. of Virginia, and Reno S. Harp, III, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Virginia, on the brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BOREMAN and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Court-assigned counsel in this habeas corpus case has earnestly presented claims of constitutional deprivation in the circumstances under which the defendant was brought to trial in the state court and in trial counsel's failure to make a number of objections, which the habeas attorney thinks should have been interposed. We find no such deprivations in the record, however, for, in general, there was a rational basis for what trial counsel did and refrained from doing. His performance was far from the low level, which, in the constitutional sense, is the equivalent of a denial of counsel.

Affirmed.Page 891Page 74