United States v. William Bartholdi

453 F.2d 1225, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11789
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 18, 1972
Docket71-1382
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 453 F.2d 1225 (United States v. William Bartholdi) 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. William Bartholdi, 453 F.2d 1225, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11789 (9th Cir. 1972).

Opinion

COPPLE, District Judge:

Appellant, incarcerated for conviction of violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312 (Dyer Act), escaped from federal custody. On January 22, 1968, following a plea of guilty to the charge of escape, imposi *1226 tion of sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on probation for a period of two years to commence upon his release from federal custody after completion of the Dyer Act sentence. Appellant was released from federal custody on September 17, 1968, and his period of probation then commenced to run with an expiration date of September 17, 1970.

In 1969, well within the period of probation, appellant was convicted in state court of a felony, a probation violation detainer was placed with state authorities, a bench warrant was issued but not executed and no order to show cause was issued. After repeated requests by appellant for a hearing on the petition for revocation, the bench warrant was executed and he was afforded such a hearing on January 25, 1971, and on February 1, 1971. Probation was revoked and appellant was sentenced to serve four months consecutive to the state sentence then being served.

Appellant contends, first, that the court had no jurisdiction to revoke his probation after the probationary period expired and, further, that the warrant was not executed and hearing held within a reasonable time. The warrant was issued within the period of probation and was thus timely. 1 Jutras v. United States, 340 F.2d 305 (1st Cir. 1964). The warrant was not executed and hearing held until after expiration of the probationary period because appellant was serving a state sentence during all that time for the same offense that furnished the basis for the ultimate revocation of his federal probation. Another panel of this Court has recently considered these same questions with regard to warrants issued for parole violation and held: “A warrant may be executed after the term has expired and may await the outcome of pending criminal charges and sentences entered thereon without amounting to an unreasonable delay. See Shelton v. United States Board of Parole, 128 U.S.App.D. C. 311, 388 F.2d 567, 571 (1967), and cases cited therein.” Barr v. Parker, 453 F.2d 865 (9th Cir. 1971). This Court sees no reason why the rule should be different in the case of a probation violation.

Other issues raised in appellant’s brief by way of argument are without merit.

Affirmed.

1

. “At any time within the probation period, or within the maximum probation period permitted by section 3651 of this title, the court . . . may issue a warrant for his arrest for violation of probation occurring during the probation period.” IS U.S.C. § 3653 [Emphasis added.]

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

Related

United States v. Cobbs
436 F. Supp. 2d 860 (E.D. Michigan, 2006)
United States v. Thomas James Garrett
253 F.3d 443 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)
United States v. Todd David Neville
985 F.2d 992 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
Pueblo v. Pacheco Torres
128 P.R. Dec. 586 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1991)
United States v. Pro
708 F. Supp. 523 (S.D. New York, 1989)
State v. Ellis
542 A.2d 279 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1988)
United States v. John Bazzano
712 F.2d 826 (Third Circuit, 1983)
United States v. Bazzano
712 F.2d 826 (Third Circuit, 1983)
United States v. Paden
558 F. Supp. 636 (District of Columbia, 1983)
United States v. William Delano Espindola
650 F.2d 1064 (Ninth Circuit, 1981)
Tritt v. State
625 P.2d 882 (Court of Appeals of Alaska, 1981)
State v. Berry
413 A.2d 557 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1980)
United States v. Gary Lee Wickham
618 F.2d 1307 (Ninth Circuit, 1980)
United States v. Leobardo Olmos-Esparza
600 F.2d 187 (Ninth Circuit, 1979)
United States v. Melton Clarence Johnson
563 F.2d 362 (Eighth Circuit, 1977)
United States v. George H. Lustig
555 F.2d 751 (Ninth Circuit, 1977)
Wallace Bryce Nicholas v. United States
527 F.2d 1160 (Ninth Circuit, 1976)
United States v. Louzon
392 F. Supp. 1220 (E.D. Michigan, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
453 F.2d 1225, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-william-bartholdi-ca9-1972.