Thomas v. United States, 71-1938 Summary Calendar.
Decision Date | 31 January 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 71-1938 Summary Calendar.,71-1938 Summary Calendar. |
Citation | 455 F.2d 469 |
Parties | Bobby Joe THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Bobby J. Thomas, pro se.
Seagal V. Wheatley, U. S. Atty., Jeremiah Handy, Asst. U. S. Atty., William S. Sessions, U. S. Atty., for respondent-appellee.
Before WISDOM, COLEMAN and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Thomas raises two contentions on this petition for rehearing. Both are without merit.
First, Thomas alleges that he was subjected to double jeopardy when, upon the new trial we ordered in Thomas v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 418 F. 2d 567, he was tried upon two of the three counts in the indictment which the original trial judge had treated as surplusage for the purposes of sentencing. Thomas had been convicted at his original trial on all six counts of the indictment. But this contention is wide of the mark Forrester v. United States, 5 Cir. 1971, 456 F.2d 905. Since there was no acquittal in treating the two counts as surplusage, there could be no double jeopardy in retrying Thomas on those two counts.
Second, Thomas argues that he was denied the right to plead anew to the indictment before being retried. Presumably, Thomas might have wished to plead guilty in the hopes of obtaining a lighter sentence. But Thomas has never alleged that he indicated a desire to change his plea prior to the commencement of his second trial; and the record reveals not the slightest protest or utterance from Thomas which might have led the district court to suspect that Thomas wished to plead anew. It has long been settled that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Bell
...judge committed error in granting a new trial, we will not allow Bell to have his proverbial cake and eat it too. Cf. Thomas v. United States, 455 F.2d 469 (5th Cir., On Rehearing, Bell complains of the admission of the in-court identification testimony of one of the government's witnesses.......
-
Dell v. State of Louisiana
...of and is able to defend himself adequately. Garland v. Washington, 232 U.S. 642, 34 S.Ct. 456, 58 L.Ed. 772 (1914); Thomas v. United States, 5 Cir. 1972, 455 F.2d 469, 470; United States v. Hart, 10 Cir. 1972, 457 F.2d 1087, 1089; Bradley v. United States, 8 Cir. 1971, 447 F.2d 264, 270. S......
-
United States v. Rogers
...232 U.S. 642, 34 S.Ct. 456, 58 L.Ed. 772 (1914). Accord, Dell v. Louisiana, 468 F.2d 324 (5th Cir. 1972) (No. 72-2041); Thomas v. U. S., 455 F.2d 469 (5th Cir. 1972). Deprivation of the right to counsel at arraignment proceedings will sometimes be inherently prejudicial of the defendant's r......
-
Boag v. Boies
... ... No. 71-1786 ... United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit ... ...