U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1956

Charles Howard v. United States

Charles Howard v. United States
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided September 20, 1956 · Miller, Bazelon, Fahy
237 F.2d 216; 99 U.S. App. D.C. 62; 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 2882 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Appellant filed a brief, pro se, and his Case was treated as submitted thereon., Mr. E. Tillman Stirling, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Lewis Carroll and Harold Titus, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, submitted on the brief for appellee. Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., at the time record was filed, and John W. Kern, Til, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered appearances for appellee.

Charles Howard v. United States

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Indicted for murder in the first degree, Charles Howard was found guilty of manslaughter. He was sentenced to imprisonment for from five to fifteen years and did not appeal. A year later, Howard moved to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and appeals from the District Court’s denial of his motion.

The trial judge-held the proof failed to how first degree murder and instruct *217 ed only on murder in the second degree and manslaughter. Howard says that in doing so the court amended the indictment; that if not found guilty of first degree murder, he should have been acquitted. Thus he seems to argue the court erred in not directing a verdict of acquittal instead of instructing on lesser included offenses.

The point is not well taken, even if it could be raised under § 2255.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.