Howard v. United States, 17177.

Decision Date10 December 1958
Docket NumberNo. 17177.,17177.
CitationHoward v. United States, 261 F.2d 729 (5th Cir. 1958)
PartiesCoy D. HOWARD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Coy Dean Howard, in pro. per.

Russell B. Wine, U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., John E. Banks, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, JONES and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was indicted for transporting a stolen automobile from the United States to Mexico in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312. After a hearing, with the appellant present and represented by court-appointed counsel, it was determined that he was mentally incompetent and incapable of standing trial. It was also determined that, if released, the appellant would endanger others. He was committed to the custody of the Attorney General and is now confined in the Federal Medical Center, at Springfield, Missouri. The proceedings were pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 4244-4248.

He sought and was denied release from custody and has appealed, presenting the single narrow question as to whether he has been denied, by the operation of the statute, the right to a speedy trial under the guarantee of the Sixth Amendment. The constitutionality of the statute has been upheld. Greenwood v. United States, 350 U.S. 366, 76 S.Ct. 410, 100 L.Ed. 412; United States v. Miller, D.C.Vt. 1955, 131 F.Supp. 88....

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
18 cases
  • United States v. Mills
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • February 22, 1971
    ...United States v. Davis, 365 F. 2d 251 (5th Cir. 1966); Johnson v. United States, 333 F.2d 371, 374 (10th Cir. 1964); Howard v. United States, 261 F.2d 729 (5th Cir. 1958). Although we find that no separate segment of the total delay, in and of itself, violated the Sixth Amendment, we must, ......
  • Lokos v. Capps
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • September 18, 1980
    ...trial grounds. This circuit has held that such a delay does not violate Sixth Amendment speedy trial considerations. Howard v. United States, 261 F.2d 729 (5th Cir. 1958). Accord, United States v. Cartano, 420 F.2d 362 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1054, 90 S.Ct. 1398, 25 L.Ed.2d 671 (......
  • United States ex rel. Daniels v. Johnston
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • June 7, 1971
    ...denied, 347 U.S. 946, 74 S.Ct. 644, 98 L. Ed. 1094 (1954); United States v. Davis, 365 F.2d 251, 255 (6th Cir. 1966); Howard v. United States, 261 F.2d 729 (5th Cir. 1958); Barfield v. Settle, 209 F.Supp. 143 The four factors enumerated above must, of course, be considered together. United ......
  • Com. v. Bruno
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • June 27, 1969
    ...rel. Thomas v. Pate, 351 F.2d 910 (7th Cir. 1965), cert. denied 383 U.S. 962, 86 S.Ct. 1232, 16 L.Ed.2d 305 (1966); Howard v. United States, 261 F.2d 729 (5th Cir. 1958); United States v. Miller, 131 F.Supp. 88 (D.Vt.1955); State v. Violett, 79 S.D. 292, 111 N.W.2d 598 (1961). Appellant off......
  • Get Started for Free