Rudy Cruz Cumpian, Petitioner-appellant, v. Walter E. Craven, Respondent-appellee, 465 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1972)
Annotate this CaseNinth Circuit.
Aug. 24, 1972.
Alvin S. Michaelson (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner-appellant.
Samuel E. Spital, Deputy Atty. Gen. (argued), Robert F. Katz, Deputy Atty. Gen., Doris H. Maier, Asst. Atty. Gen., Herbert L. Ashby, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent-appellee.
Before MERRILL and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges, and PLUMMER, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM:
Upon the factual findings of the District Court following full evidentiary hearing, Gairson v. Cupp, 415 F.2d 352 (9th Cir. 1969), does not apply.
As to appellant's contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel since his attorney did not advise him of his right to appeal in forma pauperis and of the procedure to be followed in exercising this right, we agree with the District Court that he has not exhausted his state remedies in this respect.
Affirmed.
Honorable Raymond E. Plummer, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
