UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
WILLIAM LAVERE TOWNSEND, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

9th Cir. | 1970-09-14
No. 25493
431 F.2d 702 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1970) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 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 conviction must be reversed because the record does not conclusively show that the defendant's delinquency status did not affect the induction order.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was convicted for failing to report for induction. He argued his conviction was invalid because he was declared a delinquent prior to the in…

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 indicted for failing to report for induction on January 10, 1968, pursuant to an order to report issued December 19, 1967, 50 App. U.S.C. § 462(a), and was convicted by the district court sitting without a jury. The only evidence submitted was appellant’s selective service file, introduced by the government without objection by the defense.

Appellant contends that he was declared a delinquent prior to the issuance of the order to report for induction and therefore his conviction must be reversed under Gutknecht v. United States, 396 U.S. 295, 90 S.Ct. 506, 24 L.Ed.2d 532 (1970).

In United States v. Thomas, 422 F. 2d 1327 (9th Cir. 1970), we held that, absent a showing to the contrary, we must assume that a delinquency declaration results in an accelerated induction requiring reversal.

In its supplemental memorandum, the government argues that it appears conclusively that appellant’s delinquency status did not affect the issuance of the December 19,1967, induction order, upon which the prosecution was based, because an earlier order to report had been issued on September 28, 1967, before appellant was declared a delinquent on November 14, 1967, thus establishing that he was due to be inducted in the regular order, without regard to delinquency. However, the file also discloses that on May 5, 1967, appellant had been ordered to report on May 16, 1967, for a physical examination, had failed to report, and as a result had been declared delinquent on that date. Even though appellant finally reported for his physical, it does not appear that the board removed him from delinquency status pursuant to 32 C.F.R. § 1642.4(c). We cannot assume that the subsequent induction orders were not accelerated by his continuing status as a delinquent.

Reversed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw