Doty v. United States, 15125

• Decision Date: 11 January 1955
• Docket Number: 15130.,15129,No. 15125,15126,15125
• Parties: Joel Elias DOTY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Orin Don DOTY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Paul Edward DOTY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Sid Irving DOTY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

218 F.2d 93 (1955)

Joel Elias DOTY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

Orin Don DOTY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

Paul Edward DOTY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

Sid Irving DOTY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

Nos. 15125, 15126, 15129, 15130.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

January 11, 1955.

J. B. Tietz, Los Angeles, Cal., and Chester A. Bruvold, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellants.

Clifford Janes, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Paul, Minn. (George E. MacKinnon, U. S. Atty., St. Paul, Minn., was with him on the brief), for appellee.

Before GARDNER, Chief Judge, and JOHNSEN and COLLET, Circuit Judges.

COLLET, Circuit Judge.

The four defendants, Joel Elias Doty, Orin Don Doty, Paul Edward Doty, and Sid Irving Doty were separately indicted for failure to report for military service at the order of their local draft board. Their cases were by agreement consolidated for trial. A jury was waived. All were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years. All four appeal. Their appeals were consolidated. The facts as to all four defendants are substantially the same, with one material exception relating to Joel Elias Doty, to which specific reference will be made.

The defendants are brothers, citizens and residents of Minnesota. They have never voluntarily registered with their local draft board. April 6, 1951, all were sentenced by the United States District Court in Minnesota for violation of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 451 et seq. Joel received a sentence of two years, the other three eighteen months each. All were sent to the federal institution at Ashland, Kentucky. The registrar of the local draft board at Ashland, Kentucky, interrogated each defendant at the prison. Each refused to sign a registration card. The registrar filled out the cards from information obtained from them, signed the cards for each defendant, and forwarded them to the Minnesota local board at the place of defendants' residence. Defendants were all released on parole about May, 1952. Their local draft board mailed questionnaires and other routine documents to them. Defendants ignored all inquiries and directions from their draft board. The only communication from any of them to the board was a letter from Joel, stating that he was on parole and "not subject to the whims of the local board."

Joel was born July 2, 1926. He became 26 years of age July 2, 1952. On June 13, 1952, his local board classified him in Class II-A, on the ground that he was a locomotive engineer. Actually his civilian employment was a locomotive fireman. This deferred classification, continuing at the time of his twenty-sixth birthday, continued his liability for training and service under the Act until his thirty-fifth birthday.¹

July 29, 1952, Joel's classification was changed to I-A. The other three defendants were classified I-A on that day. Although duly notified by the draft board of their classification, none appealed or made any response to notices or directions from the board. September 16, 1952, they were notified to report for induction October 13, 1952. They did nothing. All four were indicted September 4, 1953, and were tried December 7, 1953. Findings of fact and conclusions of law were made and entered by the trial court February 27, 1954, and sentences were imposed March 5, 1954.

Defendants' first point is that each was in the custody of the prison authorities and not subject to the orders of the draft board, because each was on parole at the time of his order to report for induction. §§ 716a, 716b and 717 of 18 U.S.C.A. now § 4203, § 4164 and § 4205, respectively are referred to in support of that position. We are referred to no authorities in support of that theory. Our own research has not produced any support therefor. We deem the point to be without merit.

The records of the local board are said to be "confused and confusing" and fail to support defendants' classification or conviction. The records of a draft board are not required to be kept in the meticulous form of formal court records. The records of the board in this case are adequate and sufficient. The argument is made in this connection that there was no justification in the record for Joel's deferred classification in Class II-A. The record simply states his occupation as "rail". The file contains evidence that Joel's civilian occupation was a locomotive fireman. Upon his allocution he stated that his occupation was locomotive fireman. There is no merit in that argument. Joel says that the local board was "acting out of pique" in giving him the deferred classification, and did so in order that he might be prosecuted for his refusal to comply with the draft board's orders after he became 26 years of age. There is nothing in the record to support that contention. On the contrary, the evidence supported the classification.

Defendants contend they were not eligible for service in the armed forces because of their previous conviction. This contention is based upon 50 U.S.C. § 456(m), 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 456 (m):

"(m) No person shall be relieved from training and service under this title sections 451-454 and 455-471 of this Appendix by reason of conviction of a criminal offense, except where the offense of which he has been convicted may be punished by

...