UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
LONNIE STIGALL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

6th Cir. | 1967-03-28
No. 17686
374 F.2d 854 United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (1967) Caution
Cited by 10 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that a late-filed notice of appeal, even with excusable neglect, does not confer jurisdiction.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was convicted of drug offenses and sentenced. He filed a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis fifteen months after sentencing, claim…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant has filed a motion for appointment of counsel under the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, to represent him on his appeal in this case.

The record shows that appellant was found guilty of the unlawful possession and purchase of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 174 and 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a). On September 10, 1965, he was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of seven years. No notice of appeal was filed within the time prescribed by Rule 37 (a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Under date of December 9, 1966, appellant filed in the district court a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, averring that appellant instructed his privately retained attorney to file a notice of appeal, but the attorney failed to do so; and that because of severe illness appellant had been hospitalized in prison hospitals almost continuously since the imposition of his sentence. The district court entered an order on December 9, 1966, granting leave to appeal in forma pauperis. The notice of appeal was filed on the same day, fifteen months after the imposition of sentence.

The filing of a notice of appeal as required by Rule 37(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, is mandatory and jurisdictional. Hill v. United States, 268 F. 2d 203, 205 (C.A.6), cert, denied, 361 U.S. 854, 80 S.Ct. 110, 4 L.Ed.2d 93. The filing of a notice of appeal after the expiration of the time prescribed in Rule 37(a) (2) does not confer jurisdiction upon this court. The district court is not empowered to extend the time for filing the notice except as authorized by Rule 37(a), even though the late filing was the result of “excusable neglect.” United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259.

The motion for appointment of counsel under the Criminal Justice Act is overruled. The appeal is dismissed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw