United States v. Austin, 71-1292.
| Decision Date | 24 August 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1292.,71-1292. |
| Citation | 448 F.2d 399 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Robert AUSTIN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
James R. Austin, in pro. per.
Stanley L. Patchell, Asst. U. S. Atty., Tucson, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before CARTER, KILKENNY and CHOY, Circuit Judges.
Appellant appeals from a conviction in a non-jury trial on two counts of an indictment charging transportation of the same vehicle, knowing it to have been stolen, from California to Arizona and from Arizona to New Mexico, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312.
Appellant assigns nine grounds of error below. None have merit. We comment on several and affirm.
Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. We consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the Government, as we must. The car in question had been rented to one Hilton James, who abandoned it in a parking facility at the San Francisco airport about July 5, 1969.
Appellant was licensed by the State of California as a collection agent and auto re-possessor. He had an agreement of some sort allowing him to pick up unclaimed or abandoned vehicles at the San Francisco airport parking facility.
Appellant obtained possession of the vehicle some time in the early part of July 1969. Appellant purchased gasoline for the car, with his credit card on July 7, 1969 in Burlingame, California. The car was next seen in a garage in San Francisco, on July 9, 1969, where appellant purchased gas for the car. He was accompanied by his wife and mother-in-law. Appellant asked the attendant to check the car carefully because it was going on a trip.
About the middle of July, appellant called the Budget Rent-a-Car, the owner of the car, stated he had information from an informant about the car, and asked that he be paid $100.00 for the information as to its whereabouts. The trial court found that at the date of this call, appellant knew the car belonged to Budget Rent-a-Car, and that appellant knew he had no right to the possession of the car.
In July, the car was driven from San Francisco, California to Tucson, Arizona by appellant's wife at appellant's direction and with his consent. He joined his wife in Arizona, and then drove the car into New Mexico, Texas and Colorado and back into Arizona. He abandoned the car in Tucson, Arizona.
In the latter part of August 1971, on his return to San Francisco, appellant again contacted Budget Rent-a-Car and demanded $200.00 for information as to the whereabouts of the car. The $200.00 was paid to the appellant and he revealed that the car was in Tucson, Arizona, where it was recovered by the owner.
Appellant made incriminating and conflicting statements to the FBI and to Weber,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goines v. Ryan
...dates are not required so long as they are within the statute of limitation and no prejudice is shown.") (quoting United States v. Austin, 448 F.2d 399, 401 (9th Cir. 1971)); see also State v. Verdugo, 510 P.2d 37, 38-39 (Ariz. 1973) ("It has been held repeatedly that it is sufficient under......
-
State v. Jones
...that he suffered actual prejudice. State v. Hamilton, 177 Ariz. 403, 410, 868 P.2d 986, 993 (App.1993); see also United States v. Austin, 448 F.2d 399, 401 (9th Cir.1971) ("Generally, exact dates are not required so long as they are within the statute of limitation and no prejudice is shown......
- United States v. Ryan, 72-2414.
- United States v. Menichino