United States v. Robert Daniels

Seventh Circuit

United States v. Robert Daniels

845 F.2d 156, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 5535, 1988 WL 38621

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedApril 25, 1988

Docket87-2897

StatusPublished

This text of 845 F.2d 156 (United States v. Robert Daniels) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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. Robert Daniels, 845 F.2d 156, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 5535, 1988 WL 38621 (7th Cir. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Mr. Daniels’ motion to dismiss his appeal from a criminal conviction, without prejudice to refiling the appeal later, requires us to interpret our recent opinion in United States v. Patel, 835 F.2d 708 (7th Cir.1987). There we held that in the case of “piecemeal sentencing of the same defendant under different counts in a single indictment and trial, the time to appeal runs from the entry of the last sentence.” Id. at 709. To similar effect see United States v. Wilson, 440 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir.1971). Daniels argues that Patel deprives us of jurisdiction over the present appeal and thus requires him to withdraw it.

A jury convicted Daniels, a “Greylord” defendant, of racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, mail fraud, and making false statements on his income tax returns; all these offenses had been charged in a single indictment. Shortly after the verdict came down, the Supreme Court decided McNally v. United States, — U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 2875, 97 L.Ed.2d 292 (1987), limiting the scope of the mail fraud statute. On the strength of McNally the district judge in Daniels’ case set aside the verdict on all but the tax counts; as to these he sentenced Daniels to a term of prison, and Daniels then filed the appeal that he wishes to withdraw. The government later rein-dicted Daniels for racketeering, and it was this action that precipitated the motion to withdraw.

The difference between this case and Patel should be plain. In Patel the defendant was tried and convicted on several counts all in the same indictment, and the judge imposed sentence on the different counts at different times. The case was not over in the district court until the last sentence was imposed. There are two cases against Daniels. The first wound up when the district judge, following the trial, dismissed some of the counts of which Daniels had been convicted and sentenced him on the rest. That case was over and done with and the time to appeal began to run. Then a new case began. The new case arises out of the same facts as the old one but it is a new case, and nothing in Patel authorizes a defendant to postpone the appeal of one case merely because related cases are pending against him.

Daniels has conditioned his motion to withdraw his appeal on his being allowed to refile it later, when the new case is resolved. He cannot refile it then, the condition fails, and the motion to withdraw is therefore DENIED.

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

PER CURIAM.

Mr. Daniels’ motion to dismiss his appeal from a criminal conviction, without prejudice to refiling the appeal later, requires us to interpret our recent opinion in United States v. Patel, 835 F.2d 708 (7th Cir.1987). There we held that in the case of “piecemeal sentencing of the same defendant under different counts in a single indictment and trial, the time to appeal runs from the entry of the last sentence.” Id. at 709. To similar effect see United States v. Wilson, 440 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir.1971). Daniels argues that Patel deprives us of jurisdiction over the present appeal and thus requires him to withdraw it.

A jury convicted Daniels, a “Greylord” defendant, of racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, mail fraud, and making false statements on his income tax returns; all these offenses had been charged in a single indictment. Shortly after the verdict came down, the Supreme Court decided McNally v. United States, — U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 2875, 97 L.Ed.2d 292 (1987), limiting the scope of the mail fraud statute. On the strength of McNally the district judge in Daniels’ case set aside the verdict on all but the tax counts; as to these he sentenced Daniels to a term of prison, and Daniels then filed the appeal that he wishes to withdraw. The government later rein-dicted Daniels for racketeering, and it was this action that precipitated the motion to withdraw.

The difference between this case and Patel should be plain. In Patel the defendant was tried and convicted on several counts all in the same indictment, and the judge imposed sentence on the different counts at different times. The case was not over in the district court until the last sentence was imposed. There are two cases against Daniels. The first wound up when the district judge, following the trial, dismissed some of the counts of which Daniels had been convicted and sentenced him on the rest. That case was over and done with and the time to appeal began to run. Then a new case began. The new case arises out of the same facts as the old one but it is a new case, and nothing in Patel authorizes a defendant to postpone the appeal of one case merely because related cases are pending against him.

Daniels has conditioned his motion to withdraw his appeal on his being allowed to refile it later, when the new case is resolved. He cannot refile it then, the condition fails, and the motion to withdraw is therefore DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

845 F.2d 156, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 5535, 1988 WL 38621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-robert-daniels-ca7-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack