U.S. v. Gravitt, 76-3957
| Decision Date | 22 February 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-3957,76-3957 |
| Citation | 590 F.2d 123 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Eddie GRAVITT, Ronnie Wayne Gravitt and Sandy Gravitt, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Bruce H. Morris, Atlanta, Ga., (Court-Appointed), for W. Gravitt.
William V. Hall, Jr., Decatur, Ga., for R. Gravitt and S. Gravitt.
William L. Harper, U. S. Atty., Steven W. Ludwick, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Before JONES, GODBOLD and GEE, Circuit Judges.
A robbery of the Habersham Bank in Baldwin, Georgia, on September 19, 1974, occasioned the indictment, pleas, trials, convictions and appeals here considered. The indictment named as defendants William Eddie Gravitt, known as Eddie, his girfriend, Charlotte Ann Streeton, his brother, Ronnie Wayne Gravitt, Ronnie's wife, Sandy Gravitt, and Charles Gary. Count I charged Eddie Gravitt, Charles Gary and Charlotte Ann Streeton with conspiracy to commit bank robbery; Count II charged Eddie Gravitt and Gary with bank robbery putting in jeopardy the lives of others; Count III made the charge of accessory after the fact of bank robbery against Charlotte Ann Streeton; Count IV charged Ronnie and Sandy Gravitt with misprision of the felony of bank robbery; Count V charged Ronnie Wayne Gravitt and Sandy Gravitt with possession of $106,000 stolen in the bank robbery; and Count VI charged Ronnie Wayne Gravitt with the possession of $6,000 of stolen money.
William Eddie Gravitt, Charles Gary, Ronnie Wayne Gravitt and Sandy Gravitt were convicted and appealed their convictions. While the appeal was pending Charles Gary became a fugitive and his appeal was dismissed. The conviction of Sandy Gravitt was reversed by this Court. The appeals of Eddie Gravitt and Ronnie Gravitt remain for decision.
On March 13, 1976, William Eddie Gravitt was serving a life sentence of the State of Georgia in a Georgia prison at Macon in that state. On that date he was taken into custody by Federal officers pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. After arraignment in this cause and on another indictment he was returned to state custody in Macon. He was again brought to Atlanta for a trial and acquittal on the other indictment and thereafter for trial before the district court in this cause. The trial of this cause commenced on September 20, 1976. The appellant, Eddie Gravitt, has urged that the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, 18 U.S.C. App. pp. 1395-1398, requires the entry of a judgment of acquittal because the trial, which resulted in his conviction, was not commenced within the period specified by the statute. The United States and the State of Georgia are parties to the Agreement.
The Agreement provides a procedure permitting a prisoner against whom a detainer has been lodged to require a trial upon those charged within a prescribed period:
"In respect of any proceeding made possible by this article, trial shall be commenced within one hundred and twenty days of the arrival of the prisoner in the receiving State, but for good cause shown in open court, the prisoner or his counsel being present, the court having jurisdiction of the matter may grant any necessary or reasonable continuance."
The Agreement also provides that:
"If trial is not had on any indictment, information, or complaint contemplated hereby prior to the prisoner's being returned to the original place of imprisonment pursuant to article V(e) hereof, such indictment, information, or complaint shall not be of any further force or effect, and the court shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice."
The appellant Eddie Gravitt urged by his brief and at oral argument the Agreement was the sole method of procuring the extradition of prisoners and that, since his trial was not commenced within the period of the Agreement he must be acquitted. After the submission of the appeal the Supreme Court announced the principle that where, as in this case, no detainer had been lodged, the obtaining of custody of a state prisoner by the United States does not invoke the operation of the Agreement. United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340, 98 S.Ct. 1834, 56 L.Ed.2d 329 (1978). The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Caraballo-Rodriguez
...by providing a police escort, he tried to make it appear that the transport of the drugs was legitimate. See United States v. Gravitt, 590 F.2d 123, 125-26 (5th Cir.1979) (defendant transported robbers in his car to where stolen money was stashed and then returned to his apartment where mon......
-
U.S. v. Hill
...magistrate's report, the district court denied the motion on January 10, 1977. That same day Hill pleaded guilty.11 United States v. Gravitt, 590 F.2d 123 (5th Cir. 1979), is not to the contrary. The issue of retroactivity was not discussed, and the same result was proper under our prior ho......
-
U.S. v. Davila, 82-1090
...of the felony, that he failed to notify authorities, and that he took an affirmative step to conceal the crime. United States v. Gravitt, 590 F.2d 123, 126 (5th Cir.1979); United States v. Hodges, 566 F.2d 674, 675 (9th Cir.1977). As explained by this Court in Hodges, mere failure to report......
-
U.S. v. Webster
...U.S. v. Castro, 596 F.2d 674, 676-77 (5th Cir.1979); United States v. Roach, 590 F.2d 181 (5th Cir.1979); and United States v. Gravitt, 590 F.2d 123 (5th Cir.1970). This is true, even if the evidence makes it apparent that the defendant was implicated by some indirect references. United Sta......