UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
DAVID B. TROUTMAN, APPELLANT

8th Cir. | 1970-04-28
No. 19405
Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Chief Judge, and VOGEL and HEANEY, Circuit Judges.
425 F.2d 261 United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (1970) 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

Accelerated induction based on delinquency is not authorized by Congress and cannot be the basis for conviction.


Facts & Procedural History

Defendant was ordered for induction while over 26 years old, and the order relied on a delinquency determination. The Supreme Court remanded the case …

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.

The Supreme Court by a per curiam decision and order dated February 24, 1970, granted certiorari on our judgment affirming defendant’s conviction for failure to report for induction in violation of 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 462. The Supreme Court vacated our judgment and remanded the case to us for consideration in light of Gutknecht v. United States, 396 U.S. 295, 90 S.Ct. 506, 24 L.Ed.2d 532, decided subsequent to our affirming opinion.

It clearly appears from our opinion reported at 410 F. 2d 810 that defendant at the time he was ordered to report for induction was over twenty-six years of age. Assuming without so deciding that the I-A classification is valid, defendant would under the regulations fall in category 5 of I-A classification and consequently, apart from the Board’s reliance upon the delinquency determination, defendant would not have to be included in the group required to report for induction at the time the order was entered.

Gutknecht squarely holds that the regulations accelerating induction by reason of delinquency have not been authorized by Congress and that delinquency cannot be made the basis for accelerated induction. Under the holding of the Supreme Court in Gutknecht, a reversal of the judgment of conviction is required.

The judgment of conviction is reversed and this case is remanded to the District Court to vacate the judgment of conviction and to dismiss the indictment.

Reversed and remanded.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw