United States v. Kurt J. Angelone

Bad Law
894 F.2d 1129·1990 WL 6375·1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 1099
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 31, 199089-35085California1,110 words

Opinion

Opinion

Tang, J.

Kurt Angelone appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habe-as corpus writ which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel in a previous appeal. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

In 1984, Angelone was charged and convicted of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 . On August 23, 1985, this court affirmed Angelone’s conviction.

On August 14, 1985, Angelone filed a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 35 motion requesting a reduction of his sentence. On January 30, 1986, the district court partially granted Angelone’s Rule 35 motion, reducing his sentence from seven years to six years and five months.

Angelone then filed his first petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to set aside his conviction. Angelone asserted that his trial attorney was ineffective. Specifically, Angelone contended that his trial attorney’s advice to waive a jury trial so that an intoxication defense would be considered was ineffective. For this post-conviction petition, Angelone had appointed counsel, Philip Margolin. However, Margolin later asked and received permission to withdraw. Angelone was then appointed another attorney, Gregory Yeralrud, to represent him.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.