Case Name: UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Milton BOWERS, Appellant, v. A. T. RUNDLE, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1966-05-11
Citations: 361 F.2d 218
Docket Number: No. 15560
Parties: UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Milton BOWERS, Appellant, v. A. T. RUNDLE, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 361
Pages: 218–219

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Milton BOWERS, Appellant, v. A. T. RUNDLE, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
No. 15560.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Submitted April 14, 1966.
Decided May 11, 1966.
Rehearing Denied June 16, 1966.
Milton Bowers, pro se.
Abner H. Silver, Asst. Dist. Atty., Joseph M. Smith, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Div., F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Jr., First Asst. Dist. Atty., James C. Crumlish, Jr., Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Before McLAUGHLIN, HASTIE and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
With respect to the first of appellant's contentions which concerns the failure at trial to move to suppress allegedly illegally seized evidence, we agree with the District Court that, under the circumstances of this case, Pennsylvania law governs appellant's right to attack his conviction under Bill No. 1664. Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 438, 439, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963); Henry v. State of Mississippi, 379 U.S. 443, 85 S.Ct. 564, 13 L.Ed.2d 408 (1965).
The District Court correctly found that the specific claim of alleged ineffective assistance of counsel was never directly presented to the state courts. However, in order that no possible misunderstanding regarding this might arise and based on our own examination of the record before us, we find no substantial support for the assertion.
Finally, there was no abuse of discretion by the District Court in this matter.
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.