Rodriguez v. United States, 18947.

Decision Date19 January 1972
Docket NumberNo. 18947.,18947.
Citation452 F.2d 659
PartiesFrank RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Rodney H. Bayless, Gary, Ind., for defendant-appellant.

William J. Bauer, U. S. Atty., Mary L. Sfasciotti, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellee; John Peter Lulinski, Jeffrey Cole, Asst. U. S. Attys., of counsel.

Before DUFFY, Senior Circuit Judge, and KILEY and KERNER, Circuit Judges.

DUFFY, Senior Circuit Judge.

Defendant was convicted of violating Title 50 U.S.C. App. § 462 for failure to submit to induction on May 5, 1970.

On June 28, 1967, defendant was classified I-A by his Local Board. He also was informed of the name of the Government Appeal Agent, one Stanton. Defendant did not appeal his classification. On June 14, 1968, defendant was ordered to report for a physical examination but he could not appear because he was, at that time, serving a six months' term for the sale of narcotics.

During his incarceration, defendant was reclassified I-Y. On April 11, 1969, defendant was again classified as I-A and was again informed of draft appeal procedure.

Defendant was ordered to report for a physical examination on June 10, 1969, and passed. On March 4, 1970, defendant mailed a Current Information Questionnaire to his draft board showing he was married on December 10, 1969, but that he had no children. On March 18, 1970, his local board mailed defendant an induction order for April 2, 1970.

On March 20, 1970, defendant's wife visited a doctor who determined she was pregnant. On March 23, 1970, the defendant personally advised his local board of her pregnancy.

Defendant did not report for induction on April 2, 1970, as ordered, due to extremely bad weather, a fact uncontested by the Government. On April 20, 1970, defendant was ordered a second time to report for induction on May 5, 1970.

On April 30, 1970, five days before his second induction date, defendant informed his local board he was one of Jehovah's Witnesses, that he desired to complete a conscientious objector form and have a meeting with the Board. He completed Form No. 150 for conscientious objector claims, as well as a special list of questions for Jehovah's Witnesses, filing the forms the following day. On May 4, 1970, the Board held a meeting and decided there was no change in the status of defendant from circumstances over which defendant had no control1 and advised defendant to report for induction the next day. Defendant did report but refused to step forward.

In our view, the second order for induction of April 20, 1970, cancelled and superseded the first induction order. This being our conclusion, defendant's application to the Board for a III-A classification was timely made. Therefore, defendant is entitled to have the Board again consider reopening his file for a hearing on the information provided the Board on March 23, 1970 on defendant's request for a III-A classification. White v. United States, 422 F. 2d 1254 (9 Cir., 1970).

In White, supra, the Court considered a somewhat similar situation. There, the registrant was indicted for failure...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • United States v. Case, 23655-4.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • 16 de maio de 1972
    ...and superceding the original order of February 22nd. See White v. United States, 422 F.2d 1254 (9th Cir. 1970); Rodriguez v. United States, 452 F.2d 659 (7th Cir. 1972). In that event, a criminal prosecution against this defendant for failure to submit to induction on November 15, 1971 must......
  • United States v. Waldron
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 8 de fevereiro de 1973
    ...thus, his conscientious objector claim of January 1969 was timely filed. In support of his position, Waldron cites Rodriguez v. United States, 452 F.2d 659 (7th Cir. 1971), and White v. United States, 422 F.2d 1254 (9th Cir. In Rodriguez, the defendant had failed to report for induction bec......
  • United States v. Balick
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 8 de junho de 1972
    ...to the United States Attorney rather than allowing them another chance to comply. Id. Defendant's reliance on Rodriguez v. United States, 452 F.2d 659 (7th Cir. 1971) and White v. United States, 422 F.2d 1254 (9th Cir. 1970) is misplaced. White has been limited to its peculiar facts by subs......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT