WILLIE STANTON AND MILDRED C. STANTON, APPELLANTS,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for remission of the bail bond forfeiture.
Appellants posted bail for a defendant whose appeal was dismissed. The defendant failed to appear for sentencing and was not returned by the sureties.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bail Bond Forfeiture cases and more on FLexlaw
[*823] PER CURIAM.
One Robinson was convicted of a federal offense in an Alaska court and the Stantons went on his bail bond pending appeal to this court. The appeal was dismissed.
Prior to the dismissal of the appeal, Robinson had been forcibly taken to Fort Lewis in the State of Washington for separation from the Army. Upon separation, Robinson did not return to Alaska, but went to New York. Notice was given his attorney as to the day of sentence after dismissal of the appeal, but he did not appear, and apparently made no effort to appear. The Stantons had notice of the situation but made no reasonable effort, if any at all, to return Robinson, but the United States returned him to the Alaska court from West Virginia months after the date for the sentence, and filed action and recovered judgment for the full face of the bond. Thereafter appellants filed a motion for remission under subdivision (f) (4) of Rule 46, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A.1 This motion was denied, and that ruling is before us upon appeal.
There is nothing of merit in the appeal. Remission of the sum of the judgment or any part thereof is a matter to be passed upon in the sound discretion of the court. Discretion of the court is ably commented upon in Smaldone v. United States, 10 Cir., 1954, 211 F. 2d 161, 163; wherein it is said:
“* * * [T]he term discretion when used as a guide to judicial action means sound discretion, not discretion exercised arbitrarily but with due regard for that which is right and equitable under the circumstances. It means discretion directed by reason and conscience to a •*us^ resu^‘ [Citing cases.]
There is nothing in the case to indicate that the trial court abused its discretion.
Affirmed.
. “(f) Forfeiture. * * * (4) Remission. After entry of such judgment, the court may remit it in whole or in part under the conditions applying to the setting aside of forfeiture in paragraph (2) of this subdivision.” Rule 46(f) (4), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Title 18 U.S.C.A. “(f) (2) Setting Aside. The court may direct that a forfeiture be set aside, upon such conditions as the court may impose, if it appears that justice does not require the enforcement of the forfeiture.” Rule 46(f) (2) ibid.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. United States, 357 F.2d 486 (5th Cir. 1966)
-
Am. Constitutional Party v. Munro, 650 F.2d 184 (9th Cir. 1981)
-
Larson v. United States, 296 F.2d 167 (8th Cir. 1961)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smaldone v. United States, 211 F.2d 161 (10th Cir. 1954)