GERALD GLENN BOYDEN, 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 affirmed the judgment of conviction, finding no merit in the defendant's contentions regarding delayed appeal, illegal arrest, search and seizure issues, or lack of counsel.
The defendant appealed his conviction, raising several issues including delay in his appeal, an allegedly illegal arrest, objections to searches of hi…
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 Elkins V. United States cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
We find no merit in Boyden’s contention that because his appeal was long delayed he should now go free. The delay was unavoidable.
Boyden asserts he was illegally arrested at the outset. Assuming this to be true, it is not shown how this tainted any evidence at the trial.
He objects to searches at his brother’s house when his brother was arrested. Williams v. United States, 9 Cir., 418 F. 2d 159, makes it clear that the failure to suppress (in 1955) cannot be objected to now unless the search is post Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685.
Also, some evidence was obtained (and later used) from a search of a house rented by one Charlene Adkins, a minor. She consented to the search. We are of the view that even though as a minor she might have repudiated the lease, still as the renter she could grant permission to another to enter, as the law stood in 1955.
There was some real evidence removed from Boyden’s car by a deputy sheriff and a mechanic. The events and trial were pre-Elkins (Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669). So, if not properly seized, the defendant cannot take advantage of the point. Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 14 L.Ed.2d 601.
We find that while defendant represented himself, the court did try to provide him with counsel and he refused. On the record here, he cannot complain of lack of counsel.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. DeCATUR, 430 F.2d 365 (9th Cir. 1970)
Authorities Cited
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969)
- Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 (U.S. 1965)
- Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1960)
- Williams v. United States, 418 F.2d 159 (9th Cir. 1969)