UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
GLENN ROY BERTOLINI, 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 a defendant does not have a Sixth Amendment right to representation by a lay person and that the trial court did not err in its instructions or in denying a continuance.
Defendant changed his withholding certificate to reflect nineteen allowances and filed tax returns with only constitutional objections and tax protest…
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 Sixth Amendment (Right To Counsel) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-appellant Bertolini appeals his conviction for violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7205, executing a fraudulent withholding certificate.1 Shortly after Bertolini attended a tax protest meeting he changed his withholding certificate to reflect nineteen withholding allowances. He then filed his tax returns with only constitutional objections and tax protest literature attached.
On appeal he raises three errors, none of which has merit. He first contends that the district court denied his sixth amendment rights by preventing him from having a lay person represent him at trial. There is no sixth amendment right to be represented by a lay person. Weber v. Garza, 570 F. 2d 511 (5 Cir. 1978); United States v. Arlt, 560 F. 2d 200 (5 Cir. 1977).
Second, Bertolini claims that the trial court should not have given a handbook to the jurors or told them that they must follow the law as set out by the trial court. This claim is patently frivolous.
Finally Bertolini argues that his motion for continuance should have been granted.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in this matter. Bertolini had approximately eight weeks to complete discovery in this case. United States v. Sahley, 526 F. 2d 913 (5 Cir. 1976).
We find no merit in any of the appellant’s contentions and his conviction is AFFIRMED.
. After Bertolini’s conviction he was sentenced to one year in prison and five years probation. Six months of the one year sentence were suspended. Bertolini’s probation was conditioned upon the filing of a corrected W-4 form, the payment of a $500.00 fine, and the reimbursement of the witnesses called at his request on the last day of trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Martin, 790 F.2d 1215 (5th Cir. 1986)
-
United States v. Benson, 592 F.2d 257 (5th Cir. 1979)
-
United States v. Price, 798 F.2d 111 (5th Cir. 1986)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Sahley, 526 F.2d 913 (5th Cir. 1976)
- Weber v. Garza, 570 F.2d 511 (5th Cir. 1978)
- United States v. Arlt, 560 F.2d 200 (5th Cir. 1977)