UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ROBERT LAWRENCE ATKINS, 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 trial court did not commit plain error in its supplemental jury instruction and that the sentencing court did not err in considering facts underlying a reversed murder conviction.
The defendant was convicted of a crime and appealed, raising two points of error. The first concerned a supplemental jury instruction given without ob…
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 Williams V. New York cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Defendant’s first point is that the court committed plain error in a supplemental instruction given in response to a request by the jury for classification of one of the issues in the case. No objection to the instruction was made although the court specifically queried the parties regarding its propriety. We find that no plain error was committed.
Defendant’s second point is that the sentencing court erred in considering a murder conviction of defendant’s which had been reversed on appeal. See State v. Atkins, 251 Or. 485, 446 P. 2d 660 (1968). This contention also lacks merit. A sentencing court may consider evidence of other crimes committed by the defendant even though he was never brought to trial, Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949); United States v. Doyle, 348 F. 2d 715 (2d Cir. 1965), or was brought to trial and acquitted, United States v. Sweig, 454 F. 2d 181 (2d Cir. 1972), unless the evidence was obtained in violation of a constitutional right. Verdugo v. United States, 402 F. 2d 599, 610-612 (9th Cir. 1968); contra United States v. Schipani, 435 F. 2d 26 (2d Cir. 1970).
While a sentence will be set aside if the sentencing court gives explicit consideration to one or more convictions obtained in violation of defendant’s constitutional rights without also considering the fact and effect of the unconstitutionality, United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972), the mere fact that an invalid conviction was obtained does not immunize the facts underlying this conviction from consideration by the sentencing judge. It appears on the face of the record in the present case that the sentencing judge was aware that defendant’s murder conviction had been reversed. He was, therefore, entitled to consider the facts underlying the conviction and accord them whatever weight they deserved.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Farrow v. United States, 580 F.2d 1339 (9th Cir. 1978)
-
United States v. Funt, 896 F.2d 1288 (11th Cir. 1990)
-
United States v. Brady, 928 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1991)
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1972)
- Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (U.S. 1949)
- United States v. Doyle, 348 F.2d 715 (2d Cir. 1965)
- Verdugo v. United States, 402 F.2d 599 (9th Cir. 1968)
- United States v. Sweig, 454 F.2d 181 (2d Cir. 1972)
- United States v. Schipani, 435 F.2d 26 (2d Cir. 1970)