United States v. Alan R. Mount

438 F.2d 1072 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Alan R. MOUNT, Appellant. No. 24902. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. April 15, 1970. Rehearing Denied February 5, 1971. Harriett Buhai (argued), Hollywood, Cal., for appellant. Henry J. Novak, Jr., (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Robert L. Brosio, Asst. U. S. Atty., Wm. Matthew Byrne, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Before HAMLEY, KOELSCH and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. 1 Alan R. Mount has appealed his conviction of refusing to submit to induction. (50 U.S.C. App. § 462). We reverse. 2 Before being ordered to report for induction, Mount had duly filed a Form 150 seeking reclassification from 1-A to 1-O (conscientious objector), his local board had denied reclassification without explanation, and the appeal board had sustained that action. 3 In United States v. Haughton, 413 F. 2d 736 (9 Cir., 1969) this court reversed the conviction of a registrant whose claim for conscientious objector status was similarly rejected. We held that "The local board must state the reasons for its denial of a registration classification when a registrant has `met the statutory criteria' (citation omitted) for…

On Petition for Rehearing

In this case we reversed on the authority of United States v. Haughton, 413 F.2d 736 (9th Cir., 1969). In that case it was held that when a registrant has met the statutory criteria for the classification requested or, in the language of Dickinson v. United States, 346 U.S. 389, 397 , 74 S.Ct. 152 , 98 L.Ed. 132 (1953), has placed himself “prima facie within the statutory exemption,” the local board must .state the reasons for its denial of a requested classification ( 413 F.2d, at 739 ).

Haughton had taken an appeal to the appeal board but the duty of the appeal board was not expressly discussed in the Haughton opinion. This is likewise true with regard to our opinion in Mount. Accordingly, both Haughton and our opinion in Mount implicitly, but not expressly, stand for the proposition that a like duty rests upon the appeal board under the indicated circumstances.

With regard to the pending petition for rehearing in Mount, it has been suggested that the petition should be granted because the subsequent decision of this court in United States v. Wallace, 435 F.2d 12 (9th Cir. 1970) holds that *1074 the rationale of Haughton should not be applied to…

Alan R. Mount has appealed his conviction of refusing to submit to induction. (50 U.S.C. App. § 462). We reverse.

Before being ordered to report for induction, Mount had duly filed a Form 150 seeking reclassification from 1-A to 1-0 (conscientious objector), his local board had denied reclassification without explanation, and the appeal board had sustained that action.

In United States v. Haughton, 413 F.2d 736 (9 Cir., 1969) this court reversed the conviction of a registrant whose claim for conscientious objector status was similarly rejected. We held that “The local board must state the reasons for its denial of a registration classification when a registrant has ‘met the statutory criteria’ (citation omitted) for that classification, or in the language of Dickinson (Dickinson v. United States, 346 U.S. 389, 397 , 74 S.Ct. 152 , 98 L.Ed. 132 (1953)) has placed himself ‘prima facie within the statutory exemption.’ ”

. That rule is applicable. Mount’s statements in his Form 150, although térse and inartfully juvenile, do tend to show that he was “by reason of religious training and belief conscientiously opposed to war in any form.”

I would grant the petition for rehearing. The rationale of Haughton should not be applied to Appeal Board hearings. United States v. Wallace, 435 F.2d 12 (9th Cir., 1970).

Moreover, I would not give retroactive effect to the Haughton doctrine.