Kyle v. United States, 13986.
| Citation | 211 F.2d 912 |
| Decision Date | 14 April 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 13986.,13986. |
| Parties | KYLE v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
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.
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 a representation made by the Attorney General (over whom the court has no control) that Kyle's custody at Alcatraz will not be disturbed for the purpose of bringing him to Oregon for trial. The motion for dismissal of the indictment was also denied. From these orders Kyle has appealed.
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., 142 F.2d 202; Atlantic Fishermen's Union v. United States, 1 Cir., 197 F.2d 519. Likewise the denial of a motion for a speedy trial is not ordinarily appealable. Frankel v. Woodrough, 8 Cir., 7 F.2d 796; Shepherd v. United States, 8 Cir., 163 F.2d 974. However, we think that such an order may in appropriate circumstances be regarded as final and therefore appealable; and it would seem that the present is an instance in which review by appeal may be had. So treating the matter, we hold that the court was not in error in denying the motion to set the case for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Donald
...appeal. 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 In sharp distinction to a denial of a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, a denial of a motion to dismiss on spee......
-
U.S. v. Young
...a 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, severa......
-
State v. Evans
...assuming, 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 mo......
-
Kirby v. State
...189; United 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, that the State of Maryland fai......