Lucas v. United States

• Decision Date: 18 July 1966
• Docket Number: No. 20100.,20100.
• Citation: 363 F.2d 500
• Parties: Charles Eddie LUCAS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

363 F.2d 500 (1966)

Charles Eddie LUCAS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 20100.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

July 18, 1966.

Earl Warren, Jr., Sacramento, Cal., for appellant.

Cecil F. Poole, U. S. Atty., Jerrold M. Ladar, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Before HAMLEY and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges, and THOMPSON, District Judge.

JERTBERG, Circuit Judge:

Appellant appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence of five years in the custody of the Attorney General for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312, interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle.

On this appeal two questions are presented:

1. "Whether the methods and means employed by the federal authorities involved resulted in a denial to Appellant of due process of law rights provided by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."; and

2. "Whether the methods and means employed by the federal authorities involved resulted in a denial to Appellant of the provision of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which provides that a person accused of a crime shall be given a speedy trial."

Both questions were raised in the District Court by motions to dismiss the indictment.

The facts which appear in the record are not in dispute, and may be summarized as follows:

Appellant was arrested by members of the police department of Lodi, California, on the evening of February 6, 1964, upon an alleged armed robbery charge which was subsequently dropped. On the morning of February 7, appellant was interrogated by two agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, at which time he signed a statement admitting stealing a Chevrolet automobile at Salt Lake City, Utah, and transporting it to Solano County, California. He also admitted a similar offense involving an Oldsmobile automobile. At that time the agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation were seeking appellant on a charge of unlawful flight from Utah to avoid prosecution for an offense committed against the laws of the State of Utah. The federal charge was dropped following appellant's extradition to the State of Utah, which was effected over appellant's opposition.

Following a period of incarceration in a Utah jail, on the Utah charge, appellant was transferred to the State of Nevada on a federal charge pending there, apparently involving the interstate transportation of the stolen Oldsmobile automobile. The record does not disclose the date or manner of disposition of such offense, but in any event appellant was arrested in Nevada, on December 10, 1964, on a warrant from the Northern District of California, charging him with the offense set forth in the indictment.

Appellant refused to waive a removal hearing. One was held on January 6, 1965, and a warrant for removal to the Northern District of California was issued on January 8, 1965, and on that day the indictment was returned charging that appellant did, on or about January 13, 1964, transport a Chevrolet Station Wagon from the State of Utah to the County of Solano, State of California, well knowing the said Chevrolet Station Wagon to have been stolen.

Appellant appeared for arraignment on the charge set forth in the indictment on January 18, 1965, at which time counsel was appointed to represent him. Arraignment was continued to January 25, 1965, and thereafter continued on motion of appellant to February 2, 1965, on which date motions to dismiss the indictment were filed, based on the grounds that there had been such wanton failure and delay of prosecution that appellant had been deprived of his rights guaranteed to him by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution. Said motions were argued and thereafter denied on February 8, 1965, at which time appellant entered his plea of not guilty.

Trial to a jury was had on March 25th and 26th, 1965, resulting in appellant's conviction and sentencing.

Since appellant's contentions that he was denied his right to a speedy trial and his right to due process are based upon the same facts, we deem it unnecessary to consider his contentions separately. If appellant were denied his right to a speedy trial he was thereby denied his right to due process. Therefore, in our discussion we will refer only to appellant's claimed denial of his right to a speedy trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment: "* * * the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial * * *."

Appellant does not complain of the delay occasioned by his extradition to Utah and his incarceration there on the State of Utah charge. His thrust is "that there were unreasonable and prejudicial delays in regard to both federal prosecutions * * *", and that "the delays in each compounded the delays in the other."

Appellant's position is based on the contention that the federal prosecution in Nevada, and the prosecution in California involving...