JACK C. WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
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 appellant was not prejudiced by the admission of evidence from a warrantless search and that his conviction was not a result of inadequate counsel.
Appellant was convicted of possession with intent to sell and passing counterfeit $100 Federal Reserve Notes after making purchases with counterfeit b…
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 Passing Counterfeit Obligations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant has been adjudged guilty of possession with intent to sell and with passing of counterfeit $100 Federal Reserve Notes. 18 U.S.C. §§ 472-474.
Testimony reveals that on two occasions appellant made purchases of liquor giving a counterfeit $100 note as payment and receiving change. Testimony also reveals that his apartment was searched and that liquor of the brands purchased by him was found.
Appellant attacks the warrantless search as unlawful and assigns as error the court’s failure to exclude testimony with reference to it. We find no prejudice. Appellant admitted the liquor pur chases. His defense was that he did not know that the notes were counterfeit.
Appellant complains that he was not granted a continuance so that certain witnesses might be located and subpoenaed. The court’s denial of the motion for continuance was without prejudice to its renewal. Indeed, the court indicated to counsel its willingness/ to grant a renewal of the motion the following morning if counsel indicated that his efforts to locate the witnesses were unsuccessful. There was .Ao renewal of the motion and counsel made not attempt to subpoena these witnesses. Counsel quite apparently decided against attempting to call the witnesses.
Appellant asserts that failure to renew the motion deprived him of adequate representation by counsel. Upon this record no sufficient showing is made.
Judgment affirmed.