Palmer v. United States
| Decision Date | 25 September 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 22736.,22736. |
| Citation | 401 F.2d 226 |
| Parties | Glen Woodson PALMER, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Robert C. Mussehl (argued), Seattle, Wash., for appellant.
Wm. H. Rubidge (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Eugene G. Cushing, U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for appellee.
Before BARNES and MERRILL, Circuit Judges, and McNICHOLS, District Judge*.
On November 21, 1967, at Seattle, Washington, appellant refused to submit to induction into the Armed Forces. He was duly indicted for violation of 50 U.S.C. App. § 462. On January 5, 1968, for the first time he submitted a claim of conscientious objection to his local draft board. No action was taken by the board. On January 26, 1968, he entered a plea of not guilty, was tried, found guilty and convicted. He has taken this appeal. He contends he was entitled to have his draft board act upon his claim of conscientious objection. He points to 32 C.F.R. § 1625.2 which provides for reopening even after the registrant has been ordered to report for induction.
We cannot agree with this contention. Classification functions of the local board cease with induction, and a registrant cannot, by refusing to submit to induction, impose upon the board any new duties respecting reclassification or reopening. United States v. Bonga, 201 F.Supp. 908 (E.D.Mich. 1962); United States v. Monroe, 150 F. Supp. 785 (S.D.Cal.1957); approved in Boyd v. United States, 269 F.2d 607 (9th Cir. 1959). Contra, United States v. Underwood, 151 F.Supp. 874 (E.D.Pa. 1955). To permit such imposition would be highly disruptive of the Selective Service process.1
The question for the court is simply whether at the time of refusal to submit to induction the registrant was under a duty to submit. If he was, a crime was then committed. In dealing with this question the courts do examine into the validity of the order to report and this in turn involves a limited review of past board action in classifying the registrant. These matters bear directly upon the issue of guilt. What occurs after refusal, however, is not relevant to that issue.
Appellant was, on November 21, 1967, under a duty to submit to induction. He had been classified I-A, had been determined to be physically acceptable and had been duly notified of induction. No request for reclassification was pending. No denial of reclassification was in question.
Appellant asserts that he did not know, on November 21, 1967, that he had a right to claim conscientious objection as a basis for reclassification. He contends that the board, when it notified him of induction, had a duty so to inform him and that failure to do so constitutes a violation of due process. This contention is without merit.
Prior to appellant's original I-A classification in September,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Bowen
...a refusal to submit to induction does not remove the underpinning of a conviction for not reporting for induction. Palmer v. United States, 401 F.2d 226 (9th Cir. 1968); United States v. Stoppelman, 406 F.2d 127 (1st Cir. 1969).7 At any rate, we reverse on other Regardless of the December 1......
-
United States v. Hunter
...(1971); United States v. Lowell, 437 F.2d 906 (9th Cir. 1971); United States v. Hart, 433 F.2d 950 (9th Cir. 1970); Palmer v. United States, 401 F.2d 226 (9th Cir. 1968). In several of these cases the local board refused to take any action at all. United States v. Lathrop, supra; United Sta......
-
United States v. Taylor, 29198.
...Cir. 1970); Straight v. United States, 413 F.2d 263 (9th Cir. 1969); Dugdale v. United States, 389 F.2d 482 (9th Cir. 1968). 21 401 F.2d 226, 227 (9th Cir. 1968). 22 Ibid at 23 402 U.S. 99, 91 S.Ct. 1319, 28 L.Ed.2d 625 (No. 120, April 21, 1971). See also: United States v. McDuffie, 443 F.2......
-
United States v. Hosmer, Crim. No. 70-21.
...v. Stoppelman, 406 F.2d 127, 131-133 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 981, 89 S.Ct. 2141, 23 L.Ed.2d 769 (1969); Palmer v. United States, 401 F.2d 226 (9th Cir. 1968). See also United States v. Stafford, 389 F.2d 215 (2d Cir. 1968); United States v. Gearey, 368 F.2d 144, 150 (2d Cir. 1966......