TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Romeo Luan Arreola

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Romeo Luan ARREOLA, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Arreola, 422 F.2d 869 (10th Cir. 1970)
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
March 13, 1970
Docket
No. 529-69
Judges
Breitenstein, Seth, Holloway
Citations
422 F.2d 8691970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10317

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

A jury found defendant-appellant Arreola guilty of assault with intent to do bodily harm and by use of a dangerous weapon on land within the jurisdiction of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113 . He appeals from the judgment imposing sentence.

Defendant and Jose Maria Leal, Jr., were inmates at the Federal Reformatory in El Reno, Oklahoma. Defendant admitted that he stabbed Leal with a knife and claimed that he did it in self-defense. He seeks a reversal on the ground that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense. No request for such an instruction was made and no objection was made at the trial because of the omission of such an instruction. The argument is that the defect is a plain error affecting substantial rights and should be noticed under Rule 52(b), F.R.Crim.P.

The matter is foreclosed by our decision in Hanks v. United States, 10 Cir., 388 F.2d 171, 175 , cert. denied 393 U.S. 863 , 89 S.Ct. 144 , 21 L.Ed.2d 131 , which holds that when the evidence discloses only an assault with a deadly weapon failure to instruct on a lesser offense is not plain error. In the case at bar the charge and the proof related only to an assault with a knife approximately eight inches in length. No claim is made that the knife was not a dangerous weapon. There is no dispute over the fact that the defendant did stab Leal with the knife. Absent such a factual dispute there was no error in not instructing on the lesser offense. See Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343, 350 , 85 S.Ct. 1004 , 13 L.Ed.2d 882 .

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1976: 11999: 12006: 219762026peak 2006 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hooks v. Ward184 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 1999)
  2. United States v. Leonard Roland Dupree544 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1976)
  3. United States v. Kendall Shannon Bruce458 F.3d 1157 (10th Cir. 2006)
  4. United States v. BruceNo. 05-2150 (10th Cir. Aug. 15, 2006)

Most recent

  1. United States v. BruceNo. 05-2150 (10th Cir. Aug. 15, 2006)
  2. United States v. Kendall Shannon Bruce458 F.3d 1157 (10th Cir. 2006)
  3. Hooks v. Ward184 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 1999)
  4. United States v. Leonard Roland Dupree544 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1976)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343 (1965) 714
Hanks v. United States, 388 F.2d 171 (10th Cir. 1968) 48

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