Frank Joseph McCartney v. United States, 343 F.2d 471 (9th Cir. 1965). · Go Syfert
Search
Frank Joseph McCartney v. United States, 343 F.2d 471 (9th Cir. 1965). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Eric Scurry (AMENDED OPINION) (cadc, 2021-04-05)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Eric Scurry (AMENDED OPINION)
D.C. Cir. · 2021 · confidence medium
“Although the provision of counsel in [S]ection 2255 proceedings may be discretionary, ‘[h]aving thus determined that counsel should have been appointed, the [d]istrict [c]ourt’” and this court “‘should have taken steps to insure effective representation.’” Barnes, 662 F.2d at 781 (second alteration in original) (quoting McCartney v. United States, 343 F.2d 471, 472 (9th Cir. 1965)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Eric Scurry
D.C. Cir. · 2021 · confidence medium
“Although the provision of counsel in [S]ection 2255 proceedings may be discretionary, ‘[h]aving thus determined that counsel should have been appointed, the [d]istrict [c]ourt’” and this court “‘should have taken steps to insure effective representation.’” Barnes, 662 F.2d at 781 (second alteration in original) (quoting McCartney v. United States, 343 F.2d 471, 472 (9th Cir. 1965)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Barrett v. Mississippi Bar
Miss. · 1995 · confidence medium
Barrett contends that his failure to disclose was the “honorable presentation of his chent’s case.” To support his contention, Barrett cites McCartney v. United States, 343 F.2d 471, 472 (9th Cir.1965), for the proposition that an attorney has a duty to honorably present his Ghent’s contentions in the hght most favorable to his ehent.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Bennie E. Barnes (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
As the Ninth Circuit held in McCartney v. United States, 343 F.2d 471, 472 (9th Cir. 1965), although the provision of counsel in section 2255 proceedings may be discretionary, “[h]aving thus determined that counsel should have been appointed, the District Court should have taken steps to insure effective representation.” In charging that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, appellant makes two arguments: that his right to counsel was violated by the failure to notify the attorney of his choice of the September 18 hearing; and that the error was not remedied by the December 13 hea…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Frank Joseph McCARTNEY, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
19672_1.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Apr 7, 1965.
343 F.2d 471
Frank Joseph McCartney, in pro. per., Cecil F. Poole, U. S. Atty., Sacramento, Cal., for appellee.
Orr, Koelsch, Ely.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

While it may be argued that appointment of counsel in a proceeding to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is discretionary with the United States District Court in a case such as the one before us, we do not need to direct our attention to that question here. The District Court in this case exercised its judgment and appointed counsel to represent the prisoner, McCartney. Having thus determined that counsel should have been appointed, the District Court should have taken steps to insure effective representation.

Counsel apparently misconceived his role. It was his duty to honorably present his client’s contentions in the light most favorable to his client. Instead he presumed to advise the court as to the validity and sufficiency of prisoner’s motion, by letter. We therefore conclude that prisoner had no effective assistance of counsel and remand this case to the District Court with instructions to set aside the judgment, appoint new counsel to represent the prisoner if he makes no objection thereto, and proceed anew.

Reversed and remanded.