UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CROSS-APPELLANT,
v.
FRANK ROMANO AND THOMAS ROMANO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, CROSS-APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Criminal Forfeiture cases and more on FLexlaw
BY THE COURT:
On July 19, 1984, this Court reversed the convictions of Thomas Romano and Frank Romano. United States v. Romano, 736 F. 2d 1432 (11th Cir.1984). The reversal of the convictions necessarily reversed the district court’s criminal forfeiture orders as to each defendant. While the decision as to Frank Romano was pending before this Court on the Government’s petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, Frank Romano died on January 3, 1985.
When a defendant dies pending direct appeal of his criminal conviction, the Court will dismiss the appeal as moot with respect to that defendant and remand the case to the district court to vacate the judgment and dismiss the indictment. United States v. Lewis, 676 F. 2d 508, 510 n. 1 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976, 103 S.Ct. 313, 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982); United States v. Holt, 650 F. 2d 651 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Pauline, 625 F. 2d 684 (5th Cir.1980).
Although we have not decided whether an appeal involving a criminal forfeiture order would be mooted upon the death of the defendant, in this case the Government has chosen not to contest the matter. Therefore, the opinion of this Court, insofar as it relates to Frank Romano, is VACATED. Frank Romano’s case is REMANDED to the district court so that it may vacate the judgment and dismiss the indictment as against him.
The Clerk is instructed to issue immediately the mandate on the decision of this Court as to Thomas Romano, which decision is unaffected by this order. All pending motions and petitions are DISMISSED AS MOOT.
HATCHETT, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
1. I would grant Thomas Romano’s motion to issue the mandate immediately.
2. I would grant Frank Romano’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot and direct the district court to vacate the judgment and dismiss the indictment against Frank.
3. Because I adhere to the panel opinion (United States v. Romano, 736 F. 2d 1432 (11th Cir.1984)), I would deny the government’s Motion to Vacate Portion of Opinion Because of Mootness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Parker v. State, 530 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…batement of the prosecution, both in the trial court and in this one, is appropriate and is therefore hereby ordered. Cruz v. State, 137 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962); Bagley v. State, 122 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960); cf. United States v. Romano, 755 F. 2d 1401 (11th Cir.1985) (death pending direct appeal of criminal conviction results in dismissal of appeal as moot and dismissal of indictment); United States v. Pauline, 625 F. 2d 684 (5th Cir. 1980) (abatement by death while appeal pending results in vaca…
-
Williams v. State, 648 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…CA 1992); Williams v. State, 602 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Parker v. State, 530 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Cruz v. State, 137 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962); Bagley v. State, 122 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960); cf. United States v. Romano, 755 F. 2d 1401 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. Pauline, 625 F. 2d 684 (5th Cir.1980). We agree and order that this prosecution be permanently abated ab initio in the trial and appellate courts. Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. ZEHMER, C.J.,…
-
Perry v. Leeke, 488 U.S. 272 (U.S. 1989)…ndment violation); United States v. Romano, 736 F. 2d 1432, 1435-1439 (CA11 1984) (Sixth Amendment violation when judge barred attorney-defendant discussion only regarding defendant’s testimony during 5-day recess), vacated in part on other grounds, 755 F. 2d 1401 (CA11 1985); United States v. Vasquez, 732 F. 2d 846, 847-848 (CA11 1984) (refusing to adopt rule “that counsel may interrupt court proceedings at any time to confer with his or her client about a matter in the case,” thus affirming denial of counse…
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
- McCarty v. United States, 459 U.S. 976 (U.S. 1982)
- United States v. Pauline, 625 F.2d 684 (5th Cir. 1980)
- United States v. Lewis, 676 F.2d 508 (11th Cir. 1982)
- United States v. Romano, 736 F.2d 1432 (11th Cir. 1984)
- United States v. Holt, 650 F.2d 651 (5th Cir. 1981)