UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JAMES DENNIS KING, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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 appeal is frivolous and dismissed it.
Appellant was convicted of obstructing correspondence and forging a U.S. Treasury check. His appointed counsel sought to withdraw, deeming the appeal …
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.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from conviction of obstructing correspondence and forging and uttering a United States Treasury cheek, violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1701 and 495.
After the appeal was docketed, appellant's court-appointed trial attorney was granted leave to withdraw because appellant desired to question the quality of his legal representation below. We appointed new counsel, who has also filed a motion to be relieved of his appointment, on the ground that the appeal is frivolous, accompanied by a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 1967, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed.2d 493. Advised of his right to present issues which show merit to the appeal, appellant has filed a pro se brief.
The issues presented in both briefs are: (1) insufficiency of evidence; (2) error in imposing sentences exceeding one year, since appellant was charged by information rather than indictment; (3) deprivation of fair and impartial trial because a member of the jury committed perjury by denying that he had been acquainted with the defendant; and (4) ineffective representation by failure of counsel to challenge the juror in question and failure to subpoena defense witnesses requested by appellant.
We conclude that the appeal is frivolous. The first two errors assigned lack even arguable merit. As to the second, appellant waived his right to indictment, and there is no challenge to validity of the waiver. The third and fourth are based on factual allegations outside the record, and may not be raised on direct appeal. We dismiss the appeal as frivolous under Local Rule 20, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See United States v. Mills, 5th Cir. 1971, 446 F. 2d 1397; United States v. Minor, 5th Cir. 1971, 444 F. 2d 521; Lemus v. Government of the Canal Zone, 5th Cir. 1971, 443 F. 2d 23.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Rogers, 481 F.2d 896 (5th Cir. 1973)
-
United States v. Tappen, 488 F.2d 142 (5th Cir. 1973)
-
United States v. Thomas, 479 F.2d 1326 (5th Cir. 1973)
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Minor, 444 F.2d 521 (5th Cir. 1971)
- United States v. Mills, 446 F.2d 1397 (5th Cir. 1971)
- Basilio Rudas L. Lemus v. The Gov't OF the Canal Zone, 443 F.2d 23 (5th Cir. 1971)