United States v. James Dennis King

Fifth Circuit

United States v. James Dennis King

456 F.2d 1243, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11001

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 1, 1972

Docket71-2514

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 456 F.2d 1243 (United States v. James Dennis King) 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. James Dennis King, 456 F.2d 1243, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11001 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from conviction of obstructing correspondence and forging and uttering a United States Treasury cheek, violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1701 and 495.

After the appeal was docketed, appellant's court-appointed trial attorney was granted leave to withdraw because appellant desired to question the quality of his legal representation below. We appointed new counsel, who has also filed a motion to be relieved of his appointment, on the ground that the appeal is frivolous, accompanied by a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 1967, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed.2d 493. Advised of his right to present issues which show merit to the appeal, appellant has filed a pro se brief.

The issues presented in both briefs are: (1) insufficiency of evidence; (2) error in imposing sentences exceeding one year, since appellant was charged by information rather than indictment; (3) deprivation of fair and impartial trial because a member of the jury committed perjury by denying that he had been acquainted with the defendant; and (4) ineffective representation by failure of counsel to challenge the juror in question and failure to subpoena defense witnesses requested by appellant.

We conclude that the appeal is frivolous. The first two errors assigned lack even arguable merit. As to the second, appellant waived his right to indictment, and there is no challenge to validity of the waiver. The third and fourth are based on factual allegations outside the record, and may not be raised on direct appeal.

*1245 We dismiss the appeal as frivolous under Local Rule 20, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See United States v. Mills, 5th Cir. 1971, 446 F.2d 1397; United States v. Minor, 5th Cir. 1971, 444 F.2d 521; Lemus v. Government of the Canal Zone, 5th Cir. 1971, 443 F.2d 23.

Appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from conviction of obstructing correspondence and forging and uttering a United States Treasury cheek, violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1701 and 495.

After the appeal was docketed, appellant's court-appointed trial attorney was granted leave to withdraw because appellant desired to question the quality of his legal representation below. We appointed new counsel, who has also filed a motion to be relieved of his appointment, on the ground that the appeal is frivolous, accompanied by a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 1967, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed.2d 493. Advised of his right to present issues which show merit to the appeal, appellant has filed a pro se brief.

The issues presented in both briefs are: (1) insufficiency of evidence; (2) error in imposing sentences exceeding one year, since appellant was charged by information rather than indictment; (3) deprivation of fair and impartial trial because a member of the jury committed perjury by denying that he had been acquainted with the defendant; and (4) ineffective representation by failure of counsel to challenge the juror in question and failure to subpoena defense witnesses requested by appellant.

We conclude that the appeal is frivolous. The first two errors assigned lack even arguable merit. As to the second, appellant waived his right to indictment, and there is no challenge to validity of the waiver. The third and fourth are based on factual allegations outside the record, and may not be raised on direct appeal.

*1245 We dismiss the appeal as frivolous under Local Rule 20, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See United States v. Mills, 5th Cir. 1971, 446 F.2d 1397; United States v. Minor, 5th Cir. 1971, 444 F.2d 521; Lemus v. Government of the Canal Zone, 5th Cir. 1971, 443 F.2d 23.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

456 F.2d 1243, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-james-dennis-king-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack