U.S. v. Sultani, 82-5182

Decision Date31 March 1983
Docket NumberNo. 82-5182,82-5182
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. George SULTANI, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Allen M. Lenchek, Upper Marlboro, Md., for appellant.

William Otis, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., Alexandria, Va. (Elsie L. Munsell, U.S. Atty., Dennis E. Szybala, Asst. U.S. Atty., Alexandria, Va., Sanford Saunders, third year law student on brief), for appellee.

Before WINTER, Chief Judge, ERVIN, Circuit Judge, and ALDRICH, * Senior Circuit Judge.


In a trial by a magistrate, defendant was found guilty of violating a traffic regulation applicable to Washington National Airport. He was not represented by counsel. His request for the appointment of counsel, supported by his assertion of indigency, was denied on the ground that it was unlikely that a jail sentence would be imposed in the event that defendant was found guilty. Upon finding him guilty, the magistrate sentenced the defendant to five days in jail with execution of the jail term suspended and with defendant placed on unsupervised probation for twelve months on condition that he not violate any federal motor vehicle laws during the probation period. Defendant appealed to the district court, and from its judgment adverse to him, he appeals to us.

Before us, defendant contends that he had a right to counsel because a jail sentence, the service of which was suspended, was imposed on him, that he did not waive his right to counsel, that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction and that the charging documents failed to allege a violation of law on his part.

The sentence was imposed on January 6, 1982, and was fully served by the date on which this appeal was reached for argument. Defendant successfully completed the period of probation without further infraction of federal motor vehicle regulations, and so he is beyond the time that the jail sentence can be made active. We therefore dismiss his appeal as moot, because we perceive no subsequent collateral prejudice which defendant is suffering or will suffer and because he disclaims that the issue of his right to counsel is capable of repetition, yet evading review.

While we expressly decline to decide if the right to counsel attaches when a suspended jail sentence is imposed, it is certainly clear that upon a violation of probation the jail sentence could not be made an active one when an indigent defendant had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Adkins v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 1 Septiembre 1991
    ...v. District of Columbia, 498 A.2d 190, 192 (D.C.1985); Smith v. United States, 454 A.2d 1354 (D.C.1983). See also United States v. Sultani, 704 F.2d 132, 133 (4th Cir.1983), which goes further than Lane. Although the defendant in Sultani contended on his appeal that the evidence on which hi......
  • U.S. v. Reilley, 90-8084
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 28 Octubre 1991
    ...court wishes to retain its powers to imprison a [defendant], it must simply afford [him] counsel...."); see also United States v. Sultani, 704 F.2d 132, 133-34 (4th Cir.1983) (A conditionally suspended jail sentence "could not be made an active one when an indigent defendant had requested c......
  • Ex parte Shelton
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 19 Mayo 2000
    ...United States v. Reilley, 948 F.2d 648 (10th Cir. 1991); United States v. Foster, 904 F.2d 20 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Sultani, 704 F.2d 132 (4th Cir.1983); United States v. Leavitt, 608 F.2d 1290 (9th Cir.1979); and United States v. White, 529 F.2d 1390 (8th Cir.1976). For example,......
  • Griswold v. Com.
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • 7 Junio 1996
    ...States v. Reilley, 948 F.2d 648, 654 (10th Cir.1991); United States v. Foster, 904 F.2d 20, 21-22 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Sultani, 704 F.2d 132, 133-34 (4th Cir.1983); United States v. White, 529 F.2d 1390, 1394 (8th Cir.1976); Cottle v. Wainwright, 477 F.2d 269, 275 (5th Cir.), va......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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