United States v. Fletcher, Crim. No. 80-0411-5.
| Decision Date | 23 January 1981 |
| Docket Number | Crim. No. 80-0411-5. |
| Citation | 505 F. Supp. 1053 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Donald A. FLETCHER |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
J. Gaston B. Williams, U. S. Atty., Roanoke, Va., for plaintiff.
Melvin J. Radin, Norfolk, Va., for defendant.
The defendant, Donald A. Fletcher, stands charged by Violation Notices for driving without an operator's license (Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations 4.5) and driving under the influence (Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations 4.6) while upon National Park land. A motion requesting a trial by a District Court Judge in lieu of a trial by a Magistrate was filed by the defendant. Defendant has now made a request for a trial by jury.
The court now finds that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees a jury trial to defendants charged with "serious" offenses; while defendants charged with "petty" offenses are not constitutionally entitled to a jury trial. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 159, 161, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 1452, 1453, 20 L.Ed.2d 491 (1968). A petty offense is any misdemeanor, the penalty for which does not exceed imprisonment for a period of six months or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both. 18 U.S.C. § 1(3); Also see Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 71, 90 S.Ct. 1886, 1889, 26 L.Ed.2d 437 (1970); Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. at 159, 88 S.Ct. at 1452. Since the penalties potentially imposed by 36 C.F.R. § 1.3 denotes a petty offense, the court must find that the defendant is not entitled to a jury trial. Moreover, the court is not persuaded by the argument propounded by the defendant, that because there is a possibility that his operator's license may be suspended he will be subjected to more than a fine and an incarceration of up to six months. See Commonwealth v. Ellett, 174 Va. 403, 4 S.E.2d 762 (1939) .
Accordingly, the court will issue an appropriate order denying defendant's motion for a trial by jury.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Landry v. Hoepfner
...States v. Jenkins, 780 F.2d 472 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1161, l06 S.Ct. 2283, 90 L.Ed.2d 724 (1986); United States v. Fletcher, 505 F.Supp. 1053 (W.D.Va.1981); and Matos v. Rodriguez, 440 F.Supp. 673 (D.P.R.1976), it was held that a DWI prosecution did not give rise to Sixth Amen......
-
Landry v. Hoepfner
...that DWI does not require a jury trial where the maximum punishment does not exceed the Baldwin standard include United States v. Fletcher, 505 F.Supp. 1053 (W.D.Va.1981), and Matos v. Rodriguez, 440 F.Supp. 673 (D.Puerto Rico 1976). The same holding was made by the district courts in Crane......
-
US v. Musgrave, Crim. A. No. 88-00002-C.
...Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 90 S.Ct. 1886, 26 L.Ed.2d 437 (1970), and this court's more recent decision in United States v. Fletcher, 505 F.Supp. 1053 (W.D. Va.1981), in support of its contentions that the petty offense counts charged in the current Information are not "serious" and t......
-
Quadrini v. Sikorsky Aircraft Division, Civ. No. B-74-81.
... ... SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT DIVISION, United Aircraft Corporation, Defendants ... Civ. No. B-74-81 ... United States District Court, D. Connecticut ... January 23, 1981.505 F ... ...