Zap v. United States, No. 10419.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtMATHEWS, STEPHENS, and HEALY, Circuit
Citation151 F.2d 100
PartiesZAP v. UNITED STATES.
Docket NumberNo. 10419.
Decision Date07 January 1946

151 F.2d 100 (1945)

ZAP
v.
UNITED STATES.

No. 10419.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

June 4, 1945.

Rehearing Denied September 13, 1945.

Writ of Certiorari Denied December 10, 1945.

Writ of Certiorari Granted January 7, 1946.


151 F.2d 101

Morris Lavine, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

Tom C. Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles H. Carr, U. S. Atty., of Los Angeles, Cal., James E. Harrington, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., and Alden F. Houck, Sp. Atty., Dept. of Justice, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before MATHEWS, STEPHENS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.

Writ of Certiorari Denied December 10, 1945. See 66 S.Ct. 265.

Writ of Certiorari Granted January 7, 1946. See 66 S.Ct. 469.

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.

Appellant and Lloyd Scott were indicted in 13 counts. Counts 1-12 charged violations of § 35(A) of the Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C.A. § 80. Count 13 charged a violation of § 37 of the Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C.A. § 88. Appellant and Scott pleaded not guilty and were tried. In the course of the trial, counts 2, 6, 9, 12 and 13 were dismissed. Scott was acquitted on all remaining counts. Appellant was acquitted on counts 3, 7, 8, 10 and 11, was convicted and sentenced on counts 1, 4 and 5, and has appealed.

As to count 1, appellee confesses error and consents to a reversal of the judgment.1

Appellant filed with the clerk of the trial court an assignment of errors2 whereby — in numbered paragraphs called assignments — 52 alleged errors were assigned. Appellant's counsel has filed with the clerk of this court 20 copies of a printed brief,3 but the brief does not contain a specification of errors.4 Errors assigned, but not specified, may be deemed waived.5 Therefore we might well disregard the 52 assignments of error in this case.6 However, we have not disregarded them, but have considered them, and, so far as they relate to counts 4 and 5, find no merit in them.

Judgment reversed as to count 1 and affirmed as to counts 4 and 5.

--------

Notes:

1 Appellee's brief states that "there is a real question as to whether the charge in count 1 was sufficiently definite and certain as to apprise appellant with sufficient particularity of the crime with which he stood charged," and that, "For this reason * * * the Government appellee will not resist the appeal on count 1."

2 By Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure after Plea of Guilty, Verdict or Finding of Guilty, 18 U.S. C.A. following section 688, the appellant in a criminal case is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Curtis v. Warden, Marion Corr. Ins., Case No. 1:12-cv-260
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • October 3, 2013
    ...judicata because the petitioner had opportunity to raise constitutional claims during delayed direct appeal but failed to do so); Leroy, 151 F.2d at 100 (holding as adequate and independent state grounds the procedural default of claims raised for the first time in a petition for writ of ha......
  • Jewett v. Warden, Noble Corr. Inst., Case No. 1:18-cv-406
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • August 20, 2019
    ...judicata because the petitioner had opportunity to raise constitutional claims during delayed direct appeal but failed to do so); Leroy, 151 F.2d at 100 (holding as adequate and independent state grounds the procedural default of claims raised for the first time in a petition for writ of ha......
  • Washington v. Warden, N. Cent. Corr. Inst., Case No. 1:18-cv-709
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • July 16, 2019
    ...judicata because the petitioner had opportunity to raise constitutional claims during delayed direct appeal but failed to do so); Leroy, 151 F.2d at 100 (holding as adequate and independent state grounds the procedural default of claims raised for the first time in a petition for writ of ha......
  • Bryant v. Warden, Case No. 1:13-cv-803
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • February 9, 2015
    ...judicata because the petitioner had opportunity to raise constitutional claims during delayed direct appeal but failed to do so); Leroy, 151 F.2d at 100 (holding as adequate and independent state grounds the procedural default of claims raised for the first time in a petition for writ of ha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Curtis v. Warden, Marion Corr. Ins., Case No. 1:12-cv-260
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • October 3, 2013
    ...judicata because the petitioner had opportunity to raise constitutional claims during delayed direct appeal but failed to do so); Leroy, 151 F.2d at 100 (holding as adequate and independent state grounds the procedural default of claims raised for the first time in a petition for writ of ha......
  • Jewett v. Warden, Noble Corr. Inst., Case No. 1:18-cv-406
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • August 20, 2019
    ...judicata because the petitioner had opportunity to raise constitutional claims during delayed direct appeal but failed to do so); Leroy, 151 F.2d at 100 (holding as adequate and independent state grounds the procedural default of claims raised for the first time in a petition for writ of ha......
  • Washington v. Warden, N. Cent. Corr. Inst., Case No. 1:18-cv-709
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • July 16, 2019
    ...judicata because the petitioner had opportunity to raise constitutional claims during delayed direct appeal but failed to do so); Leroy, 151 F.2d at 100 (holding as adequate and independent state grounds the procedural default of claims raised for the first time in a petition for writ of ha......
  • Bryant v. Warden, Case No. 1:13-cv-803
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • February 9, 2015
    ...judicata because the petitioner had opportunity to raise constitutional claims during delayed direct appeal but failed to do so); Leroy, 151 F.2d at 100 (holding as adequate and independent state grounds the procedural default of claims raised for the first time in a petition for writ of ha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT