ARTHUR E. ROBBINS, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE

9th Cir. | 1967-12-12
No. 21464
387 F.2d 139 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1967) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that the denial of counsel at a preliminary hearing is not grounds for reversal absent a showing of prejudice.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) and sentenced to 25 years. He later filed a motion to set aside the sentence, arguing…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted in 1963 of a violation of Section 2113(a) and (d) of Title 18, and was committed to the custody of the Attorney General for a period of 25 years. Upon appeal the conviction was affirmed by this court (9 Cir., 345 F. 2d 930).

In 1965, the appellant filed, a motion in the district court pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, seeking to set aside the sentence imposed by the trial court. This is an appeal from the denial of that motion.

The appellant urges that the Commissioner erred in refusing his request for appointment of counsel at the preliminary hearing,1 but he does not direct us to any prejudice suffered by reason of such refusal. Absent a showing of prejudice, denial of counsel at a preliminary hearing is not grounds for reversal of a trial court conviction. Johnson v. United States, 361 F. 2d 447 (CA 9), cert. den. 385 U.S. 976, 87 S.Ct. 516, 17 L.Ed. 2d 439.

There was ample evidence to convict appellant of “placing life in jeopardy” within the meaning of subsection (d) of § 2113. See Wagner v. United States, 264 F. 2d 524 (CA 9).

The appellant’s charge that the trial judge was prejudiced against him because he requested a trial is absurd. He was sentenced to 25 years as provided in § 2113(d), but the sentence was imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 4208(a) (2) allowing appellant to be considered for parole release at any time without serving the minimum of one-third of his sentence.2

Affirmed.

. At the time of the preliminary hearing, the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 552 (1964) 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, which provides counsel for indigents at such hearings, had not yet become law.

. We were informed when the briefs were filed that appellant, who placed “life in jeopardy” during the robbery, has already been paroled.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw