TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Edward G. Robinson v. United States

Edward G. ROBINSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Robinson v. United States, 272 F.2d 554 (D.C. Cir. 1959)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 25, 1959
Docket
No. 14702
Judges
Miller, Bastian, Burger
Citations
272 F.2d 554106 U.S. App. D.C. 3251959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3020

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

On June 25, 1958, Edward G. Robinson was found guilty of robbery. He did not take an appeal within the time permitted by Rule 37(a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., but attempted to do so about 40 days thereafter. The Government moved to docket and dismiss, relying on Rules 37(a) (2) and 45(b). On the authority of Robinson v. United States, 1958, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 200 , 260 F.2d 718 , certiorari granted 1959, 358 U.S. 940 , 79 S.Ct. 347 , 3 L.Ed.2d 348 , in which this court held by a divided vote that the time for taking an appeal in a criminal case may be extended if the failure to take it seasonably was due to excusable neglect, the motion was denied and the case was remanded to the District Court to determine whether Robinson’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal was due to excusable neglect. The District Court decided the delay was excusable, so this appeal was allowed. Briefs have been filed, oral argument has been heard on the merits, and the case has been submitted.

Shortly before submission, the Government moved that we withhold our opinion in this case pending the Supreme Court’s determination of the Robinson case, which is scheduled for oral argument in November, 1959. It is of course obvious that a reversal of that case before our decision here would require us to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. This court’s Robinson ruling is the law of this jurisdiction, however, unless and until the Supreme Court reverses it. It holds that we have jurisdiction of a tardy *555 criminal appeal if excusable neglect is found. Such neglect having been determined to exist in this case, we must entertain the present appeal.

Since our consideration of the merits convinces us there was no prejudicial error, the resulting affirmance will have the same practical effect as a dismissal for want of jurisdiction. We deny the Government’s motion to withhold a decision here, and uphold the conviction.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1974: 11990: 11991: 21998: 119742026peak 1991 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Angarano v. United States329 A.2d 453 (D.C. 1974)
  2. Erspamer v. Derwinski1 Vet. App. 3 (Vet. App. 1990)
  3. Laruan v. West11 Vet. App. 80 (Vet. App. 1998)
  4. Harrison v. Derwinski1 Vet. App. 438 (Vet. App. 1991)
  5. Lefkowitz v. Derwinski1 Vet. App. 439 (Vet. App. 1991)

Most recent

  1. Laruan v. West11 Vet. App. 80 (Vet. App. 1998)
  2. Harrison v. Derwinski1 Vet. App. 438 (Vet. App. 1991)
  3. Lefkowitz v. Derwinski1 Vet. App. 439 (Vet. App. 1991)
  4. Erspamer v. Derwinski1 Vet. App. 3 (Vet. App. 1990)
  5. Angarano v. United States329 A.2d 453 (D.C. 1974)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Troyit Robinson v. United States of Am., Travit Robinson v. United States, 260 F.2d 718 (D.C. Cir. 1959) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list