United States v. Kermit Joseph Plount

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Kermit Joseph Plount

452 F.2d 606, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 6783

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 3, 1971

Docket26498

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 452 F.2d 606 (United States v. Kermit Joseph Plount) 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

United States v. Kermit Joseph Plount, 452 F.2d 606, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 6783 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plount, a federal prisoner, was convicted of assaulting a fellow inmate with a dangerous weapon with intent to do bodily harm. 18 U.S.C. § 113(c). His trial was to a jury. On appeal, he challenges (1) the admissibility of statements made by him immediately after the alleged assault, (2) the failure of the trial court to conduct an inquiry into the voluntariness of his incriminatory statements, (3) the giving of an instruction on self defense and flight, and the failure to give an instruction on provocation, (4) the scope of cross-examination, and (5) the adequacy of his trial counsel.

Since the foregoing contentions were not made in the court below, we can recognize and undertake to remedy only “plain errors . . . affecting substantial rights.” Rule 52(b), Fed.R.Crim.Proc. We have examined the record and have concluded that none of the claimed errors constitute "plain” error. Moreover, the record does not conclusively demonstrate that Plount’s trial attorney was incompetent in the constitutional sense. See United States v. Porter, 431 F.2d 7, 10-11 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 960, 91 S.Ct. 360, 27 L.Ed.2d 269 (1970). There may have been valid reasons, based on trial strategy, why the attorney chose not to pursue courses which, in hindsight, might be thought to have been more desirable.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Plount, a federal prisoner, was convicted of assaulting a fellow inmate with a dangerous weapon with intent to do bodily harm. 18 U.S.C. § 113(c). His trial was to a jury. On appeal, he challenges (1) the admissibility of statements made by him immediately after the alleged assault, (2) the failure of the trial court to conduct an inquiry into the voluntariness of his incriminatory statements, (3) the giving of an instruction on self defense and flight, and the failure to give an instruction on provocation, (4) the scope of cross-examination, and (5) the adequacy of his trial counsel.

Since the foregoing contentions were not made in the court below, we can recognize and undertake to remedy only “plain errors . . . affecting substantial rights.” Rule 52(b), Fed.R.Crim.Proc. We have examined the record and have concluded that none of the claimed errors constitute "plain” error. Moreover, the record does not conclusively demonstrate that Plount’s trial attorney was incompetent in the constitutional sense. See United States v. Porter, 431 F.2d 7, 10-11 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 960, 91 S.Ct. 360, 27 L.Ed.2d 269 (1970). There may have been valid reasons, based on trial strategy, why the attorney chose not to pursue courses which, in hindsight, might be thought to have been more desirable.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

452 F.2d 606, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 6783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-kermit-joseph-plount-ca9-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack