United States v. O'NEAL
| Decision Date | 04 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1101.,71-1101. |
| Citation | 453 F.2d 344 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Felix Lindsey O'NEAL, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Michael Lerner, Kansas City, Kan., for appellant.
James A. Pusateri, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Kan. (Robert J. Roth, U. S. Atty. on the brief), for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, HOLLOWAY and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Appellant was convicted under 18 U. S.C. § 922(g) (1) of interstate transportation of a firearm after having previously been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, and in the instant case was sentenced to four years imprisonment. The Government moves to dismiss his appeal on the grounds that he has fled the jurisdiction of the Court and failed to appear as ordered before the District Court for a hearing as to whether the conditions of his appeal bond should be modified.
After conviction in September, 1970, appellant was freed on an appeal bond. In December, 1970, an application was made for a show cause order which was issued and appellant was ordered to appear on December 28 before the District Court for a determination whether the conditions of release should be modified. He failed to so appear and the appeal bond was forfeited and a bench warrant issued. The record shows no indication of any appearance by appellant thereafter. At argument on the motion to dismiss there was no dispute asserted by appellant's counsel as to these record facts.
Counsel for appellant answered in writing and objected to dismissal and also appeared and argued in opposition to the motion to dismiss. We realize that this is an appeal of right in a criminal case and that its dismissal is a serious matter. Nevertheless from all appearances before us, appellant has absconded and defies the authority of the courts. In such circumstances we feel he is in no position to insist upon the hearing and determination of the merits of his appeal. We feel that a conditional dismissal of the appeal is in accord with sound principles as stated in Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 366, 90 S.Ct. 498, 499, 24 L.Ed.2d 586:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. Forsyth
...(App. 30), rev'd, 472 F.2d 340 (CA7 1972); United States v. O'Neal, No. KC-CR-1204 (Kan., Sept. 1, 1970) (App. 38), appeal dism'd, 453 F.2d 344 (CA10 1972). So matters stood when Mitchell authorized the Davidon wiretap at issue in this case. Only days after the termination of the Davidon wi......
-
Brinlee v. Crisp
...been allowed before dismissal in some cases, as we did in United States v. Swigart, 490 F.2d 914, 915 (10th Cir.), and United States v. O'Neal, 453 F.2d 344 (10th Cir.), this seems not to be constitutionally mandated. In Molinaro the Court said that "(t)he dismissal need not await the end o......
-
Huron Valley Hosp., Inc. v. City of Pontiac, 85-1693
...U.S. 970, 93 S.Ct. 1443, 35 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973); United States v. O'Neal, No. KC-CR-1204 (Kan. Sept. 1, 1970), appeal dismissed, 453 F.2d 344 (10th Cir.1972). There can be no doubt here that the defendants' "conduct violated clearly established law." Mitchell, 105 S.Ct. at 2816. As a limitat......
-
U.S. v. Sperling
...to custody. Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365 (1970); Brinlee v. United States, 483 F.2d 925 (8 Cir. 1973); United States v. O'Neal, 453 F.2d 344 (10 Cir. 1972); Johnson v. Laird, 432 F.2d 77 (9 Cir. 1970); Stern v. United States, 249 F.2d 720 (2 Cir. 1957), cert. denied, 357 U.S. 919 (1......