Case Name: BOEHMAN v. GREEN
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1943-06-30
Citations: 136 F.2d 804
Docket Number: No. 8395
Parties: BOEHMAN v. GREEN.
Judges: Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and EDGERTON and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 136
Pages: 804–804

Head Matter:
BOEHMAN v. GREEN.
No. 8395.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Argued June 3, 1943.
Decided June 30, 1943.
Mr. Josiah Lyman, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. John P. Burke, Assistant United States Attorney, of Washington D. C., with whom Messrs. Edward M. Curran, United States Attorney, and Charles B. Murray, Assistant United States Attorney, both of Washington, D. C., appeared on the brief, for appellee. Mr. John L. Laskey, Assistant United States Attorney, of Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and EDGERTON and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of grand larceny in July, 1941, and is now serving a sentence in the District of Columbia jail. He brings this habeas corpus proceeding on the ground that in the trial of the charge on which he was convicted his counsel represented him so incompetently that he was deprived of his constitutional rights. The court below after a full hearing found that appellant was represented by an experienced member of the bar who conducted the case in an energetic and capable manner. It also found that the testimony of appellant as to the defense which he alleged his counsel failed to present was "incredible and unworthy of belief".
Assuming without deciding that the question of competence of counsel in a former criminal trial can be raised in a habeas corpus proceeding, Bostic v. Rives, 1939, 71 App. D. C. 2, 107 F.2d 649, the record in this case shows that the findings of the trial court that appellant was competently and adequately represented are amply sustained by the evidence.
The judgment of the court below dismissing the petition and discharging the writ will, therefore, be
Affirmed.