United States v. Cleveland Andrews

429 F.2d 574, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8084
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJuly 20, 1970
Docket27545
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 429 F.2d 574 (United States v. Cleveland Andrews) 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
United States v. Cleveland Andrews, 429 F.2d 574, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8084 (5th Cir. 1970).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted of interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle. 1 At trial he filed a motion to suppress two confessions admitting the crime on the ground that he was not given proper Miranda warnings and advice. The trial court heard evidence and found that appellant was twice warned of his rights, which he intelligently and knowingly waived. The record is devoid of any evidence to the contrary.

Appellant next contends that there was no evidence that would corroborate his confessions. We make no analysis of this contention because the record clearly reveals substantial evidence that would have sustained his conviction even without the confessions.

Appellant’s final contention is that the trial court’s charge 2 compelled him to take the stand in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. This court has recently reconsidered and approved a charge identical in every material respect to that given by the court in this case. United States v. Cook, 419 F.2d 1306 (5th Cir. 1969). We have no need to add to that decision.

Finding no merit in any contention raised by appellant, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. Pursuant to our Rule 18, this case is decided without oral argument.

2

. “Possession of property recently stolen, if not satisfactorily explained, is ordinarily a circumstance from which the Jury may reasonably draw the inference and find, in the light of surrounding circumstances shown by the evidence in the case, that the person in possession knew that the property had been stolen.”

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

Related

Hall v. State
490 S.W.2d 589 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1973)
United States v. Julius L. Gulledge, Carl Hathcock
469 F.2d 713 (Fifth Circuit, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
429 F.2d 574, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-cleveland-andrews-ca5-1970.