United States v. Durka, 73-1553.
Decision Date | 28 December 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 73-1553.,73-1553. |
Citation | 490 F.2d 478 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stanley DURKA, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Stanley Durka, pro se.
James R. Thompson, U. S. Atty., William T. Huyck, Martin B. Lowery, Asst. U. S. Attys., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before SWYGERT, Chief Judge, KILEY, Circuit Judge, and POOS, Senior District Judge.*
Defendant and eighteen other persons were indicted on February 19, 1972 for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 2314 and 371. At his arraignment the defendant requested and received court-appointed counsel to represent him. The case proceeded to trial culminating in a jury verdict of acquittal of the defendant on January 15, 1973. Approximately three months after the defendant's acquittal the district court entered an order, on April 9, 1973, directing the defendant to pay $3,250 in reimbursement for the services rendered and expenses incurred by his court-appointed counsel during the course of defendant's case. The district court's order provided that:
If defendant fails to pay that sum on or before April 30, 1973 . . . the United States Attorney is directed to institute contempt proceedings against him.
The defendant's challenge to the district court's order raises two issues in this appeal: (1) whether a federal district court can order an acquitted defendant to pay part of the costs of such defendant's defense by court-appointed counsel, where such order is entered almost three months following return of verdict and discharge of the defendant; and (2) whether such an order may be entered without affording defendant a hearing and an opportunity to be heard.
Addressing ourselves to the first issue, we hold that the district court possessed jurisdiction to enter an order affecting the defendant's property rights despite the passage of three months from the rendition of judgment and defendant's discharge. See Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 1, 23, 6 L.Ed. 253 (1825); Field v. United States, 193 F.2d 86, 90 (2d Cir. 1951). Having determined that the district court had jurisdiction to enter an order of payment, we further rule that 18 U.S.C. § 3006A vests in the district court broad authority to issue such an order. Subsections (c), (d), and (f) of 18 U.S.C. § 3006A provide:
It is not an abuse of authority if within a reasonable time after judgment the district court directs a defendant found financially able to obtain counsel or to make partial payment to pay for services rendered or expenses incurred by appointed counsel. In view of the complexity of the criminal case with...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Simmons v. James
...validity of the judgment. The right to contest a judgment at a collection proceeding satisfies due process requirements. (See, United States v. Durka, 490 F.2d 478 7th Cir. 1973; Stroinski v. Office of Public Defender, 134 N.J.Super. 21, 338 A.2d 202 1975. See also, People v. Amor, 12 Cal.3......
-
U.S. v. Ross, 90-1028
...program for the cost of his attorney. We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in so finding. Cf. United States v. Durka, 490 F.2d 478 (7th Cir.1973) (trial court's determination whether defendant able to pay costs reviewed for abuse of Ross also argues that factual dete......
-
Curry v. Wilson
...States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reached a similar decision in a case where the defendant was acquitted. In United States v. Durka, 490 F.2d 478 (1973), the Court held that a federal district court had jurisdiction "to enter an order affecting the defendant's property rights ......
-
U.S. v. Martin-Trigona, MARTIN-TRIGON
...to reimburse the Criminal Justice Fund. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(c); United States v. Allen, 596 F.2d 227 (7th Cir. 1979); United States v. Durka, 490 F.2d 478 (7th Cir. 1973).10 Martin-Trigona also contends that the trial court violated rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by failin......