United States v. John Paul Wilson

THE APPEAL

Wilson, appearing pro se, and in forma pauperis, appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence for escape under 18 U.S.C. § 751 (a). 1 We note jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

THE FACTS

On December 17, 1979, Wilson pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor counterfeit charge, *1270 18 U.S.C. § 491 (a). He received a one year sentence with six months suspended on the condition that he spend six months in a treatment-oriented institution, and was placed on three years probation.

After some delay due to another pending proceeding, Wilson was taken to the West Glenn Center, a federal halfway house. About two weeks after his arrival at the facility, Wilson signed out and failed to return. Deputy United States Marshals staked out Wilson’s girlfriend’s apartment in Arizona. The marshals, in possession of both a description and a photograph of Wilson, observed him leave the apartment, stopped him, and explained who they were and who they were looking for. Although one marshal testified that he was certain at that point that the suspect was in fact Wilson, they neither informed Wilson that he was under arrest, nor read him the warnings required by Miranda v.…

dissenting:

Because the majority misconstrues Wilson’s self-representation claim and errone *1277 ously concludes that he was not denied his right to self-representation, I must dissent.

Wilson wanted to represent himself; he said so unequivocally at his arraignment. Instead, after a hearing, the magistrate appointed counsel to represent Wilson because “the defendant lacks sufficient background educationally or otherwise to adequately represent himself .... ” Wilson attempted to appeal the magistrate’s denial of his request to represent himself but received no response. He filed a “Notice of Intent to Appeal Denial of Motion to Proceed in Propia Persona” with the district court. Although the motion was erroneously styled an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the court received the document long before Wilson’s trial. Nothing prevented the court from informing Wilson of his error or simply overlooking the error and considering the motion as though it had been properly styled an appeal to the district court. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 , 92 S.Ct. 594, 595 , 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (technical deficiencies in pro se pleadings more readily overlooked than similar deficiencies in…

690 F.2d 1267 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Paul WILSON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 81-1117. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Sept. 9, 1981. Majority Opinion with Dissent Filed Jan. 14, 1982. Opinion Withdrawn and Resubmitted July 1, 1982. Decided Oct. 26, 1982. 1 Dennis E. Curtis, William J. Genego, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant. 2 Ruth L. Cohen, Asst. U.S. Atty., Las Vegas, Nev., for plaintiff-appellee. 3 Appeal from the United States District Court For the District of Nevada. 4 Before WRIGHT and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and EAST, * District Judge. EAST, District Judge: THE APPEAL 5 Wilson, appearing pro se, and in forma pauperis, appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence for escape under 18 U.S.C. § 751 (a). 1 We note jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. THE FACTS 6 On December 17, 1979, Wilson pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor counterfeit charge, 18 U.S.C. § 491 (a). He received a one year sentence with six months suspended on the condition that he spend six months in a treatment-oriented institution, and was placed on three years probation. 7 After some delay due to…