Kyle v. United States, No. 13986.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | HEALY and ORR, Circuit , and LEMMON |
| Citation | 211 F.2d 912 |
| Parties | KYLE v. UNITED STATES. |
| Decision Date | 14 April 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 13986. |
211 F.2d 912 (1954)
KYLE
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 13986.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
April 14, 1954.
Arnold Thomas Kyle, in pro. per.
Sefton & Gartland, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
C. E. Luckey, U. S. Atty., Eugene, Or., for appellee.
Before HEALY and ORR, Circuit Judges, and LEMMON, District Judge.
HEALY, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Kyle is a life-timer in Alcatraz Prison. In March 1937 he was indicted with one Hetzer in the United States Court for the District of Oregon on three counts of felony charging conspiracy, the larceny by force and violence of money belonging to a national bank, and the larceny of such money by putting in jeopardy the lives of persons through the use of dangerous weapons. His codefendant Hetzer was apprehended, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to a fine and 20 years in prison. Kyle himself apparently fled the jurisdiction and has never been in the custody of the United States marshal for the Oregon district since the finding of the indictment. It appears without controversy that he was subsequently convicted of bank robbery in the Southern District of California and sentenced to a term of 25 years at Alcatraz, and was thereafter sentenced to a consecutive term of five years on conviction for escape. Later, in the course of an attempt to escape, he killed a United States marshal and upon conviction of the murder was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for his natural life, concurrent with the previous sentences. Still later he attempted another escape, and has professed his purpose of escaping at any opportunity.
In August 1951, through court-appointed counsel, he moved in the United States court for Oregon for a speedy trial on the March 1937 indictment, or in the alternative for its dismissal. The court denied the motion for a speedy trial on the ground that it was without power to order the warden of Alcatraz Prison to bring Kyle to the Oregon jurisdiction, and upon the further ground of
We are of opinion that the order denying the motion for dismissal of the indictment is not appealable, and the appeal on that phase is accordingly dismissed. Cf. Conway v. United States, 9 Cir., ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Donald, No. 75-1892
...United States v. Bailey, 512 F.2d 833 (CA5), cert. dism'd, 423 U.S. 1039, 96 S.Ct. 578, 46 L.Ed.2d 415 (1975); Kyle v. United States, 211 F.2d 912 (CA9 1954).6 Page 858 In sharp distinction to a denial of a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, a denial of a motion to dismiss on spe......
-
U.S. v. Young, No. 75-3102
...final order within the meaning of the statute People of Territory of Guam v. Lefever,454 F.2d 270 (9th Cir. 1972); Kyle v. United States, 211 F.2d 912 (9th Cir. 1954). Thus, were it not for appellant's claim of double jeopardy, this case could be disposed of by memorandum. However, several ......
-
State v. Evans
...though it is not apparent in the record, that New York would have made Simmons available for trial, compare Kyle v. United States, 211 F.2d 912 (9th Cir. 1954), we do not think it unreasonable for the Government not to put to immediate trial a person having at the most 10 or 11 months remai......
-
Kirby v. State, No. 214
...States v. Jackson, D.C.E.D.Ky., 134 F.Supp. 872. See also Baker v. Marbury, 216 Md. 572, 574, 141 A.2d 523; Kyle v. United States, 9 Cir., 211 F.2d 912; Nolly v. State, 35 Ala.App. 79, 43 So.2d If we assume again, as we did when he was here before, Page 425 that the State of Maryland failed......
-
United States v. Donald, No. 75-1892
...United States v. Bailey, 512 F.2d 833 (CA5), cert. dism'd, 423 U.S. 1039, 96 S.Ct. 578, 46 L.Ed.2d 415 (1975); Kyle v. United States, 211 F.2d 912 (CA9 1954).6 Page 858 In sharp distinction to a denial of a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, a denial of a motion to dismiss on spe......
-
U.S. v. Young, No. 75-3102
...final order within the meaning of the statute People of Territory of Guam v. Lefever,454 F.2d 270 (9th Cir. 1972); Kyle v. United States, 211 F.2d 912 (9th Cir. 1954). Thus, were it not for appellant's claim of double jeopardy, this case could be disposed of by memorandum. However, several ......
-
State v. Evans
...though it is not apparent in the record, that New York would have made Simmons available for trial, compare Kyle v. United States, 211 F.2d 912 (9th Cir. 1954), we do not think it unreasonable for the Government not to put to immediate trial a person having at the most 10 or 11 months remai......
-
Kirby v. State, No. 214
...States v. Jackson, D.C.E.D.Ky., 134 F.Supp. 872. See also Baker v. Marbury, 216 Md. 572, 574, 141 A.2d 523; Kyle v. United States, 9 Cir., 211 F.2d 912; Nolly v. State, 35 Ala.App. 79, 43 So.2d If we assume again, as we did when he was here before, Page 425 that the State of Maryland failed......