United States v. Hayles
| Decision Date | 03 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-3681.,72-3681. |
| Citation | 492 F.2d 125 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Kermit HAYLES, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Francis I. Gandy, Jr., Corpus Christi, Tex., for defendant-appellant.
Anthony J. P. Farris, U. S. Atty., James R. Gough, Ellis C. McCullough, Asst. U. S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before WISDOM, COLEMAN and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
Kenneth Kermit Hayles appeals from a conviction of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and an ensuing sentence of twenty five years imprisonment. We affirm.
This appeal was argued in New Orleans on October 1, 1973. We deferred decision pending the outcome in the Supreme Court of United States v. Matlock, ___ U.S. ___, 94 S.Ct. 988, 38 L. Ed.2d 242 decided February 20, 1974, 42 LW 4252.
In Matlock the Supreme Court held that "the consent of one who possesses common authority over premises or effects is valid as against the absent, nonconsenting person with whom that authority is shared."
This settles the primary contention raised by Hayles. There can be no doubt that Mrs. Hayles consented to the search of an automobile which her husband, the appellant, had borrowed from another. Hayles sought, however, to suppress evidence secured from that vehicle on the ground that his wife had no joint control. The District Court found that Mrs. Hayles did have joint control and that finding is supported by the evidence.
Hayles was arrested at his home. As he took his departure with the officers he carried several items with him but not the car keys, which were on a dresser. Members of the family had always had access to another car owned by the defendant but he gave no instructions as he left the keys that they were not to use the borrowed vehicle. Thereafter, the son did use the car to drive to school; this had been done so the wife would not have to take him and return home to get other children ready for school before leaving to go to her employment. Indeed, the wife testified that she would not have given the son permission to drive the car to school had she thought it would displease her husband. The car was in the family yard when she gave the keys to the officers.
Hayles also complains that he had already been convicted of the robbery in the state courts and thus the federal prosecution amounted to double jeopardy, but the Supreme Court adversely disposed of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delay v. U.S.
...Vacating 502 F.2d 300 (8th Cir. 1974); Hayles v. United States, 419 U.S. 892, 95 S.Ct. 168, 42 L.Ed.2d 136 (1974), Vacating 492 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 1974); Thompson v. United States, 400 U.S. 17, 91 S.Ct. 122, 27 L.Ed.2d 17, Vacating 421 F.2d 373 (5th Cir. 1970). These cases may have involved......
-
U.S. v. Wallace
...Watts v. United States, 422 U.S. 1032, 1036-37, 95 S.Ct. 2648, 45 L.Ed.2d 688 (1975) (Burger, C. J., dissenting); United States v. Hayles, 492 F.2d 125, 126 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. Frumento, 409 F.Supp. 136, 141 (E.D.Pa.1976), aff'd, 563 F.2d 1083 (3d Cir. 1977). We decline, as di......
-
U.S. v. Nelligan, 77-5403
...that should not be enforced against the government. See Fry v. United States, 5 Cir., 1978, 569 F.2d 303, 304; 6 United States v. Hayles, 5 Cir., 492 F.2d 125, 126, vacated on other grounds, 419 U.S. 892, 95 S.Ct. 168, 42 L.Ed.2d 136 (1974). AFFIRMED. * Senior Judge of the United States Cou......
-
U.S. v. Martin
...that should not be enforced against the government. See Fry v. United States, 5 Cir., 1978, 569 F.2d 303, 306; United States v. Hayles, 5 Cir., 492 F.2d 125, 126, vacated on other grounds, 419 U.S. 892, 95 S.Ct. 168, 42 L.Ed.2d 136 (1974)." (footnotes omitted) Finding no merit to appellants......