William Carlton Mason v. United States

Ninth Circuit

William Carlton Mason v. United States

303 F.2d 775, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4988

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 28, 1962

Docket17697

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 303 F.2d 775 (William Carlton Mason v. United States) 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

William Carlton Mason v. United States, 303 F.2d 775, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4988 (9th Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The orders appealed from are affirmed. The points of objection on the revocation of probation, we regard as of the type that they should be raised, if at all, by an appeal of the order revoking probation, not on collateral attack.

Apparently the district court wants us to rule flatly in this case, one way or the other, just what procedure is required on revocation of probation. This we decline to do. Certainly the safe practice is to see that the defendant is furnished counsel, if he does not have it, and to give an opportunity for allocution. Cf. Brown v. United States, 9 Cir., 236 F.2d 253.

Here the defendant goes elsewhere and commits almost the same crime as he committed before. The original court then takes the condition (probation) out of the sentence.

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

PER CURIAM.

The orders appealed from are affirmed. The points of objection on the revocation of probation, we regard as of the type that they should be raised, if at all, by an appeal of the order revoking probation, not on collateral attack.

Apparently the district court wants us to rule flatly in this case, one way or the other, just what procedure is required on revocation of probation. This we decline to do. Certainly the safe practice is to see that the defendant is furnished counsel, if he does not have it, and to give an opportunity for allocution. Cf. Brown v. United States, 9 Cir., 236 F.2d 253.

Here the defendant goes elsewhere and commits almost the same crime as he committed before. The original court then takes the condition (probation) out of the sentence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 F.2d 775, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-carlton-mason-v-united-states-ca9-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack