Fred Rose Morales v. United States

344 F.2d 846 Fred Rose MORALES, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. No. 19441. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. May 1, 1965. H. Hal Visick, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant. Francis C. Whelan, U.S. Atty., Richard A. Murphy, Asst. U.S. Atty., Chief, Crim. Sec., Robt. H. Filsinger, Asst., U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Before BARNES, DUNIWAY and ELY, Circuit Judges. ELY, Circuit Judge: 1 Fred Rose Morales was charged, in three counts, with concealment and facilitation of concealment of certain quantities of heroin in violation of Section 174, Title 21 United States Code. In a jury trial, Morales was found guilty of the charges preferred in the three separate counts, and this appeal is from the judgment of conviction. 2 Morales and his wife, Patricia, resided in a dwelling located in Whittier, Los Angeles County, California, and it was in that dwelling that Morales was arrested. Prior to his arrest, the office of the Sheriff of Orange County, California, had, for some time, been in possession of two valid warrants calling for the arrest of Patricia. One of the warrants had been issued because of her failure to report to the California Youth…

Fred Rose Morales was charged, in three counts, with concealment and facilitation of concealment of certain quantities of heroin in violation of Section 174, Title 21 United States Code. In a *848 jury trial, Morales was found guilty of the charges preferred in the three separate counts, and this appeal is from the judgment of conviction.

Morales and his wife, Patricia, resided in a dwelling located in Whittier, Los Angeles County, California, and it was in that dwelling that Morales was arrested. Prior to his arrest, the office of the Sheriff of Orange County, California, had, for some time, been in possession of two valid warrants calling for the arrest of Patricia. One of the warrants had been issued because of' her failure to report to the- California Youth Authority and the other because of her failure, after she had been released on her own recognizance, to make a timely appearance for answer to a charge of violating Section. 11721 of California’s' Health and Safety Code. See Footnote #1, infra.

The arrest of Morales occurred at approximately 10 p. m. on February 6,1964. Four days before, a Sergeant of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department had been informed as to the…

(dissenting):

For the reason expressed in the Ginoza v. United States dissent ( 279 F.2d 616 (9th Cir. 1960)), I feel required to dissent, and do dissent, to this opinion, which follows the majority in Ginoza. An appellate court is not better qualified or more able to determine what constitutes “without unnecessary delay” (Rule 5(a)) — which “cannot mean instantly” (Muldrow v. United States, 281 F.2d 903 (9th Cir. 1960)) — than is the court below.