United States v. Atkins

9th Cir.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Citations: 480 F.2d 1223, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8911

Decision Date: 7/9/1973

Docket Number: No. 73-1561

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: United States v. Atkins, 480 F.2d 1223, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8911 (9th Cir. 1973)

More Cases: 9th Cir. decisions from 1973

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Frequently CitedTop 12% most-cited · cited by 16 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1970s1980s1990s2000s2020s

Courts citing this case

9th Cir.5

11th Cir.1

2d Cir.1

4th Cir.1

7th Cir.1

Alaska Ct. App.1

Most recently cited by10

2024Peo v. Melton Colo. Ct. App.
2004People v. Newman Colo.
1993United States v. John Charles Walsh 9th Cir.
1992United States v. Concepcion 2d Cir.
1990United States v. Funt 11th Cir.
1990Brakes v. State Alaska Ct. App.
1985United States v. Bernard 4th Cir.
1985State v. Ramsay Vt.
1983People v. La Plant Colo. App.
1982United States v. Campbell D.C. Cir.

Cites 7 cases

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Lawrence ATKINS, Defendant-Appellant.

Attorneys

Richard H. Muller, Bouneff, Muller, Marshall & Hawkes, Portland, Or., for defendant-appellant.
Sidney I. Lizak, U. S. Atty., Charles H. Turner, Asst. U. S. Atty., Portland, Or., for plaintiff-appellee.

majority PER CURIAM:

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant’s first point is that the court committed plain error in a supplemental instruction given in response to a request by the jury for classification of one of the issues in the case. No objection to the instruction was made although the court specifically queried the parties regarding its propriety. We find that no plain error was committed.

Defendant’s second point is that the sentencing court erred in considering a murder conviction of defendant’s which had been reversed on appeal. See State v. Atkins, 251 Or. 485, 446 P.2d 660 (1968). This contention also lacks merit. A sentencing court may consider evidence of other crimes committed by the defendant even though he was never brought to trial, Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949); United States v. Doyle, 348 F.2d 715 (2d Cir. 1965), or was brought to trial and acquitted, United States v. Sweig, 454 F.2d 181 (2d Cir. 1972), unless the evidence was obtained in violation of a constitutional right. Verdugo v. United States, 402 F.2d 599, 610-612 (9th Cir. 1968); contra United States v. Schipani, 435 F.2d 26 (2d Cir. 1970).

While a sentence will be set aside if the sentencing court gives explicit consideration to one or more convictions obtained in violation of defendant’s constitutional rights without also considering the fact and effect of the unconstitutionality, United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972), the mere fact that an invalid conviction was obtained does not immunize the facts underlying this conviction from consideration by the sentencing judge. It appears on the face of the record in the present case that the sentencing judge was aware that defendant’s murder conviction had been reversed. He was, therefore, entitled to consider the facts underlying the conviction and accord them whatever weight they deserved.

Affirmed.