United States v. Ignacio Hall Valtierra

Good Law
467 F.2d 125
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 11, 197271-2481California1,659 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Carter, J.

Appellant was convicted and sentenced on two counts of unarmed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a). On appeal he contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion to postpone the trial and a motion to appoint a second psychiatrist to examine him. We find the denial of appellant’s motions to be within the discretion of the trial court, and affirm.

On October 29, 1970, appellant robbed a branch of the Wells Fargo Bank, and later that day was arrested shortly after robbing a branch of Western Federal Savings and Loan. Appellant claims he committed the robberies so he could be tried in a federal court. Once in court he intended to tell the world that he had overheard a plot to assassinate President Nixon, thus insuring himself a place in American history.

Dissenting Opinion

Ely, J.

(dissenting) :

I respectfully dissent. It is true, of course, that a District Court has wide discretion in respect to the allowance of requested continuances. At the same time, we know that the manner in which such discretion is exercised is reviewable.

Here, the appellant had a long history of severe mental illness and, for such, had been intermittently confined to mental institutions. In these circumstances, it seems to me that the appellant’s attorney had reason to anticipate that the opinion of the court-appointed psychiatrist would prove to be contrary to that which the psychiatrist eventually expressed. Within a very few days after receiving the report of the psychiatrist, which, in its conclusion, must have been somewhat surprising to the appellant’s attorney, the attorney filed his motion for a continuance. 1 The motion was not opposed by the Government. The supporting affidavit set forth as reasons for the request that another psychiatrist should be appointed and that the medical record of the Government’s Springfield medical facility, wherein the appellant had just been confined and under observation for a period of five months, should be obtained. Obviously, these…

Opinion

467 F.2d 125 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ignacio Hall VALTIERRA, Defendant-Appellant. No. 71-2481. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Aug. 11, 1972. Rehearing Denied Sept. 11, 1972. Morton L. Shatzkin (argued), Studio City, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Stephen V. Wilson, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), William R. Hawes, Eric A. Nobles, Asst. U. S. Attys., William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Before BARNES, ELY and CARTER, Circuit Judges. JAMES M. CARTER, Circuit Judge. 1 Appellant was convicted and sentenced on two counts of unarmed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113 (a). On appeal he contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion to postpone the trial and a motion to appoint a second psychiatrist to examine him. We find the denial of appellant's motions to be within the discretion of the trial court, and affirm. 2 On October 29, 1970, appellant robbed a branch of the Wells Fargo Bank, and later that day was arrested shortly after robbing a branch of Western Federal Savings and Loan. Appellant claims he committed the robberies so he could be tried in a federal court. Once in court he intended…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.