Ronnie Gene Johnson v. R. Pulley, Superintendent

Ninth Circuit

Ronnie Gene Johnson v. R. Pulley, Superintendent

685 F.2d 327, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 16355

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 25, 1982

Docket81-4352

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 685 F.2d 327 (Ronnie Gene Johnson v. R. Pulley, Superintendent) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ronnie Gene Johnson v. R. Pulley, Superintendent, 685 F.2d 327, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 16355 (9th Cir. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Johnson appeals the dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus. He was convicted in the courts of California and was incarcerated when he filed his petition, but is now at liberty on parole. He was given notice of the hearing and requested that his appeal be submitted on the briefs. He argues that his sentence for bank robbery was enhanced improperly by the trial judge giving consideration to his use of a firearm in the commission of the offense, despite the provisions of California Penal Code § 1170(b). It is his argument that this enhancement amounted to a violation of his due process rights under the United States Constitution.

Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed under the provisions of Rule 4(a)(1), F.R.A.P., and no motion for exten *328 sion of time was sought from the district court within the period provided by Rule 4(a)(5), F.R.A.P. We dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Pettibone v. Cupp, 666 F.2d 333 (9th Cir. 1981).

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

ORDER

Johnson appeals the dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus. He was convicted in the courts of California and was incarcerated when he filed his petition, but is now at liberty on parole. He was given notice of the hearing and requested that his appeal be submitted on the briefs. He argues that his sentence for bank robbery was enhanced improperly by the trial judge giving consideration to his use of a firearm in the commission of the offense, despite the provisions of California Penal Code § 1170(b). It is his argument that this enhancement amounted to a violation of his due process rights under the United States Constitution.

Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed under the provisions of Rule 4(a)(1), F.R.A.P., and no motion for exten *328 sion of time was sought from the district court within the period provided by Rule 4(a)(5), F.R.A.P. We dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Pettibone v. Cupp, 666 F.2d 333 (9th Cir. 1981).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

685 F.2d 327, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 16355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronnie-gene-johnson-v-r-pulley-superintendent-ca9-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack