Coy D. Howard v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Coy D. Howard v. United States

261 F.2d 729, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3323

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 10, 1958

Docket17177_1

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 261 F.2d 729 (Coy D. Howard v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coy D. Howard v. United States, 261 F.2d 729, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3323 (5th Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was indicted for transporting a stolen automobile from the United States to Mexico in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312. After a hearing, with the appellant present and represented by court-appointed counsel, it was determined that he was mentally incompetent and incapable of standing trial, It was also determined that, if released, the appellant would endanger others. He was committed to the custody of the Attorney General and is now confined in the Federal Medical Center, at Springfield, Missouri. The proceedings were pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 4244-4248.

He sought and was denied release from custody and has appealed, presenting the single narrow question as to whether he has been denied, by the operation of the statute> the right to a speedy trial under the guarantee of the Sixth Amendment, The constitutionality of the statute has been upheld. Greenwood v. United States, 350 U.S. 366, 76 S.Ct. 410, 100 L.Ed. 412; United States v. Miller, D.C.Vt. 1955, 131 F.Supp. 88. The judgment from which appeal has been taken is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was indicted for transporting a stolen automobile from the United States to Mexico in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312. After a hearing, with the appellant present and represented by court-appointed counsel, it was determined that he was mentally incompetent and incapable of standing trial, It was also determined that, if released, the appellant would endanger others. He was committed to the custody of the Attorney General and is now confined in the Federal Medical Center, at Springfield, Missouri. The proceedings were pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 4244-4248.

He sought and was denied release from custody and has appealed, presenting the single narrow question as to whether he has been denied, by the operation of the statute> the right to a speedy trial under the guarantee of the Sixth Amendment, The constitutionality of the statute has been upheld. Greenwood v. United States, 350 U.S. 366, 76 S.Ct. 410, 100 L.Ed. 412; United States v. Miller, D.C.Vt. 1955, 131 F.Supp. 88. The judgment from which appeal has been taken is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 F.2d 729, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coy-d-howard-v-united-states-ca5-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack