TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Cleveland Andrews

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cleveland ANDREWS, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Andrews, 429 F.2d 574 (5th Cir. 1970)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
July 20, 1970
Docket
No. 27545
Judges
Thornberry, Morgan, Clark
Citations
429 F.2d 5741970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8084

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted of interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle.

1

At trial he filed a motion to suppress two confessions admitting the crime on the ground that he was not given proper Miranda warnings and advice. The trial court heard evidence and found that appellant was twice warned of his rights, which he intelligently and knowingly waived. The record is devoid of any evidence to the contrary.

Appellant next contends that there was no evidence that would corroborate his confessions. We make no analysis of this contention because the record clearly reveals substantial evidence that would have sustained his conviction even without the confessions.

Appellant’s final contention is that the trial court’s charge 2

compelled him to take the stand in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. This court has recently reconsidered and approved a charge identical in every material respect to that given by the court in this case. United States v. Cook, 419 F.2d 1306 (5th Cir. 1969). We have no need to add to that decision.

Finding no merit in any contention raised by appellant, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. Pursuant to our Rule 18, this case is decided without oral argument.

2

. “Possession of property recently stolen, if not satisfactorily explained, is ordinarily a circumstance from which the Jury may reasonably draw the inference and find, in the light of surrounding circumstances shown by the evidence in the case, that the person in possession knew that the property had been stolen.”

How later courts describe this case

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

1971: 11972: 11973: 119712026peak 1971 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Julius L. Gulledge, Carl Hathcock469 F.2d 713 (5th Cir. 1972)
  2. Hall v. State490 S.W.2d 589 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973)
  3. Robert Elwood Young v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida439 F.2d 426 (5th Cir. 1971)

Most recent

  1. Hall v. State490 S.W.2d 589 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973)
  2. United States v. Julius L. Gulledge, Carl Hathcock469 F.2d 713 (5th Cir. 1972)
  3. Robert Elwood Young v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida439 F.2d 426 (5th Cir. 1971)

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
United States v. Cook, 419 F.2d 1306 (5th Cir. 1969) 11

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