Hannigan v. United States, 7926.
| Decision Date | 16 February 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 7926.,7926. |
| Citation | 341 F.2d 587 |
| Parties | Ronald Kenneth HANNIGAN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
G. Kevin Conwick, for appellant.
Thomas E. Joyce, Shawnee Mission, Kan., for appellee.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and BREITENSTEIN and HILL, Circuit Judges.
This matter was heard on the government's motion to dismiss the attempted appeal in forma pauperis for failure to file a timely notice as required by Rule 37(a) (2) F.R.Crim.P. In his affidavit in support of his pro se petition for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, appellant stated that "his court-appointed counsel failed to file timely notice of appeal which would have raised `a constitutional issue of law.'" In view of this statement, counsel was appointed, and he moved for Transcript of the Record in Forma Pauperis to determine whether the "Appellant may not have been `represented by counsel' within the meaning of Rule 37(a) (2) at the sentencing and during the ten-day period prescribed for filing of notice of appeal", and whether the trial court "fulfilled its duty to protect defendant's right of appeal as required by said rule."
The record here shows that the appellant and a co-defendant were tried to a jury and convicted of a federal offense. Appointed trial counsel filed and argued a motion for new trial alleging seven grounds. The court overruled the motion and postponed formal sentence pending pre-sentence investigation and report. About twenty-five days later the appellant and his co-defendant, each represented by their trial counsel, appeared for sentence. Appointed counsel asked that appellant be given credit for the four and one-half months he had been in jail awaiting trial. Upon being asked if he had anything to say before sentence was imposed, counsel answered "no, sir." Whereupon, sentence was imposed and the court formally thanked counsel, but the record does not reflect whether counsel was discharged at that time from further representation of the appellant.
Appellant remained in jail for about ten days before being committed to the institution in which he is now confined. Nearly a month after his sentence, appellant wrote the District Judge asking that his sentence be reduced. The Court treated the letter as a motion to reduce sentence under Rule 35 and overruled it. Another month later, the appellant moved pro se for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. The Court first granted the appeal, then set it aside on motion of the government on the grounds that no timely notice had been filed.
At the time of imposition of sentence, the appellant was undoubtedly entitled to advice of counsel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hines v. Baker
...an appeal should be taken. 3 Wynn v. Page, 369 F.2d 930 (10th Cir.); Chase v. Page, 343 F.2d 167 (10th Cir.); and Hannigan v. United States, 341 F.2d 587 (10th Cir.). 4 See Hall v. Peyton, 299 F.Supp. 613 5 § 40-24-4, New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1953, which was in force in 1958 at the tim......
-
Rodriquez v. United States, 749
...333 F.2d 378 (1964). Both petitioner and the Government attempt to find support in the position of the Tenth Circuit. Hannigan v. United States, 341 F.2d 587 (1965). The Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and District of Columbia Circuits do not require any showing about the issues to be raised......
-
Williams v. United States
...Miller v. United States, 5 Cir., 356 F.2d 63, 65; Dillane v. United States, 121 U.S.App. D.C. 354, 350 F.2d 732, 733; Hannigan v. United States, 10 Cir., 341 F.2d 587, 588. As pointed out in the cases last cited, the objective of granting a defendant an appellate review of which he has been......
-
Marsh v. United States, CIV-74-526-D.
...selection he is not entitled to habeas relief. Schechter v. Waters, 199 F.2d 318 (CA10 1952). Unlike the situation in Hannigan v. United States, 341 F.2d 587 (CA10 1965) where the accused was represented by court-appointed counsel and the record was unclear whether counsel was discharged at......