United States v. Charles E. Hamilton, United States of America v. Charles Eugene Hamilton

Hamilton appeals from his conviction on seven counts of armed robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a), (d). Hamilton argues that he was denied his sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, that the district judge should have recused himself, that he was deprived of the right to be absent from trial, that a photographic spread was unduly suggestive, that parts of three jury instructions were prejudicial, and that the district judge erred in admitting certain evidence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

I

On July 12, 1983, a man robbed the Union Federal Savings and Loan of Newbury Park, California. A Ventura County, California, deputy sheriff heard a broadcast reporting that the robbery had occurred and that the suspect was a black man driving a white Cadillac.

A short time thereafter, the deputy sheriff saw a vehicle and driver matching the description given in the broadcast. With the assistance of other law enforcement officers, he stopped the vehicle and ordered the occupants to step out. Hamilton got out of the vehicle, along with Sheila Davis, a female co-defendant. Witnesses at the bank identified Hamilton as the robber, and he…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur in all but Part VII A of the majority opinion. I cannot join in that portion of the opinion because I believe that under the facts of this case the police could not have reasonably believed that Claudia Cosbie had authority to consent to the warrentless search of the motor home.

I

As an initial matter, I disagree with the majority opinion’s implication that the issue of whether Cosbie had sufficient authority under the fourth amendment to consent to a search of a motor home should be reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. In my view, the question of whether Cosbie’s consent, freely and voluntarily given, was binding on Hamilton for the purposes of the fourth amendment “requires us to consider abstract legal doctrines, to weigh underlying policy considerations, and to balance competing legal interests.” United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1205 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 101 , 83 L.Ed.2d 46 (1984). It is a question not altogether different from the questions of exigent circumstances and probable cause, questions which this court has already decided warrant de novo review. Id. at 1200 n.…

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur in parts I-VI of the majority opinion, and in part VII for the reason expressed in sub-part A. I find it unnecessary to reach the issues in sub-part B.

Were it necessary to reach those issues, I would dissent, on the ground that this is an unwarranted extension of the “vehicle exception.” I see a significant difference in the expectancy of privacy in a motor home located in a public parking lot, such as involved in California v. Carney, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 2066 , 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985), and a motor home located in a private driveway under the circumstances involved in this case. Here the motor home was connected with the utilities in the residence. The persons utilizing the motor home were not persons who would be driving the vehicle away before a warrant could be obtained, but teenagers under the supervision of the resident of the house. The location and use being made of this vehicle was much more akin to a functional part of a private residence than to a motor vehicle on the highway, where the vehicle exception is meant to apply.

792 F.2d 837 55 USLW 2042 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles E. HAMILTON, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Eugene HAMILTON, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 84-5060, 84-5063. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 5, 1985. Decided June 19, 1986. William Fahey, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Robert L. Allen, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before WALLACE, HUG and HALL, Circuit Judges. WALLACE, Circuit Judge: 1 Hamilton appeals from his conviction on seven counts of armed robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113 (a), (d). Hamilton argues that he was denied his sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, that the district judge should have recused himself, that he was deprived of the right to be absent from trial, that a photographic spread was unduly suggestive, that parts of three jury instructions were prejudicial, and that the district judge erred in admitting certain evidence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 , and we affirm. 2 *…