Williams v. United States, Misc. No. 265.
| Decision Date | 23 February 1951 |
| Docket Number | Misc. No. 265. |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Dallas O. Williams, pro se.
George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty., Joseph M. Howard, and Jerome Powell, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER, and PROCTOR, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner was convicted in the District Court of assault with a dangerous weapon and carrying a deadly weapon. He was sentenced on March 24, 1950 to serve a term of imprisonment.
Under Rule 37(a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., petitioner had 10 days in which to take an appeal. Although he was represented by counsel at his trial, petitioner himself, while confined in the District of Columbia jail, prepared a communication to the District Court indicating an intention to appeal from the conviction. This communication was subscribed and sworn to on March 30, 1950 before a notary public employed at the jail. In accordance with the customary procedure, it was turned over on the following day to a deputy United States marshal for delivery to the office of the clerk of the District Court. However, it was not received there until April 4, one day after the expiration of the time for filing a notice of appeal. It was presented to a judge of the District Court, who instructed the clerk to forward it to the clerk of this court, which he did. On July 12, 1950 the clerk of this court returned the communication to the clerk of the District Court with a letter stating that, unless a notice of appeal was submitted to the District Court within the time prescribed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, this court had no jurisdiction.
There ensued considerable correspondence between petitioner and the clerk of this court. Finally, on October 6, 1950 petitioner filed in this court a petition for leave to prosecute his appeal, stating he was "applying to appeal" his conviction. Respondent, regarding the petition as a request for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs, moved to dismiss, as it did not appear that the District Court had been given an opportunity to certify whether the appeal was taken in good faith. The motion to dismiss is not well taken. The effect of petitioner's position is that he has not been given the opportunity to appeal, without regard to the question of costs. Apparently the required fee of five dollars for filing the notice of appeal did not accompany petitioner's communication.
After respondent's motion to dismiss was filed, petitioner filed two supplements to his petition in which he asks release on bond and that witnesses be permitted to testify.
This case is not unlike Boykin v. Huff, 1941, 73 App.D.C. 378, 121 F.2d 865. It is clear that petitioner...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coppedge v. United States
...in District Court); Belton v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 81, 259 F.2d 811 (letter written to District Court); Williams v. United States, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 212, 188 F.2d 41 (notice of appeal delivered to prison officials for forwarding to District Court). See also Jordan v. United States ......
-
Belton v. United States
...and timely notice of appeal. Rule 37(a) (2) F.R.Crim.P., 18 U.S.C.; Boykin v. Huff, 73 App.D.C. 378, 121 F.2d 865; Williams v. United States, 88 U.S. App.D.C. 212, 188 F.2d 41; accord, Shannon v. United States, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 4, 206 F.2d 479; and see Kirksey v. United States, 94 U.S.App.D.......
-
Rothman v. U.S., 74-1240
...12 L.Ed.2d 760 (1964); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 442 n. 5, 82 S.Ct. 917, 8 L.Ed.2d 21 (1962); Williams v. United States, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 212, 188 F.2d 41 (1951).2 Rothman has stated, without contradiction, that his notice of appeal was duly mailed in the federal penitentiary ......
-
Fallen v. United States
...may irrevocably be lost." Coppedge v. United States, supra. There is, we think, no merit in this point. Williams v. United States, D.C.Cir.1951, 88 App.D.C. 212, 188 F.2d 41. The Rules of Criminal Procedure do not permit, as do the Rules of Civil Procedure,4 any enlargement of time for taki......