TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Steve Casias v. United States

Steve CASIAS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Casias v. United States, 350 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1965)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
July 28, 1965
Docket
No. 8131
Judges
Hill, Lewis, Per Curiam, Phillips
Citations
350 F.2d 3171965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4779

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was indicted, tried before a jury, convicted and sentenced for violation of the narcotics statutes. Upon appeal the conviction was affirmed.

1

There-after and while serving a State-imposed sentence, Casias filed a pro se motion to vacate and set aside his Federal conviction and sentence on the ground that one Gutierrez had, since the trial, confessed to the crime for which he had been convicted. The motion was denied, without a hearing, and upon appeal this court reversed and remanded the case with directions to treat the motion as one under Rule 33, F.R.Crim.P., as timely filed and to hold a hearing thereupon.

2

In accordance with these directions, the trial court held an extended eviden-tiary hearing, in which Casias, Gutierrez, two narcotics agents, a former agent and a former special employee of the Bureau of Narcotics testified. The trial judge then found the “new evidence” to be without credibility and denied the motion.

A motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is not regarded with favor and should be granted only with great caution. The granting of such a motion rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge and the denial of such a motion will not be disturbed on appeal, in the absence of a plain abuse of discretion.

3

We have carefully considered the transcript of the testimony taken at the hearing of appellant’s motion and are *318 in accord with the trial judge’s conclusion that the “new evidence” offered lacks credibility. In addition, we certainly cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the motion.

Affirmed.

1

. Casias v. United States, 10 Cir., 315 F.2d 614 , cert. denied, 374 U.S. 845 , 83 S.Ct. 1901 , 10 L.Ed.2d 1065 .

2

. Casias v. United States, 10 Cir., 337 F.2d 354 .

3

. Long v. United States, 10 Cir., 139 F.2d 652 .

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1967: 31968: 11969: 11970: 11971: 11972: 31975: 11976: 11982: 119672026peak 1967 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Ismael Perea458 F.2d 535 (10th Cir. 1972)
  2. United States v. John F. Grismore546 F.2d 844 (10th Cir. 1976)
  3. Billy Wayne Wheeler and Johnnie Green, Jr. v. United States382 F.2d 998 (10th Cir. 1967)
  4. Grover Spurgeon King v. United States402 F.2d 289 (10th Cir. 1968)
  5. United States v. Richard J. Maestas523 F.2d 316 (10th Cir. 1975)
  6. United States v. Bacon12 M.J. 489 (1982)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Bacon12 M.J. 489 (1982)
  2. United States v. John F. Grismore546 F.2d 844 (10th Cir. 1976)
  3. United States v. Richard J. Maestas523 F.2d 316 (10th Cir. 1975)
  4. United States v. Carson William Steel, Jr.458 F.2d 1164 (10th Cir. 1972)
  5. United States v. Ismael Perea458 F.2d 535 (10th Cir. 1972)
  6. State v. Rincones495 P.2d 1019 (Kan. 1972)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Casias v. United States, 315 F.2d 614 (10th Cir. 1963) 38
Casias v. United States, 337 F.2d 354 (10th Cir. 1964) 25
Long v. United States, 139 F.2d 652 (10th Cir. 1943) 22

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