United States v. Robert Lee Pike

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert Lee PIKE, Appellant

United States v. Pike, 439 F.2d 695 (9th Cir. 1971)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided: March 4, 1971
Docket: No. 26044
Judges: Merrill, Hufstedler, Solomon
Citations: 439 F.2d 6951971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11548

Cited by 12 2 descriptions by later courts Original from court

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Pike appeals from his conviction for failing to report for his physical examination and for refusing to submit to induction in violation of 50 U.S.C. App. § 462.

We reverse Pike’s conviction because the district court erroneously denied Pike’s timely request to represent himself. As Judge Medina observed in United States v. Plattner (2d Cir. 1964) 330 F.2d 271 , 273: “The right to act pro se * * * is a right arising out of the Federal Constitution and not the mere product of legislation or judicial decision. Thus we would be required to remand the case, even if no prejudice to Plattner were shown to have resulted from the refusal to permit him to act pro se.”

Nothing in the record suggests that Pike’s election "io waive counsel and to conduct his own defense was incompetent or un *696 intelligent.

See Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann (1942) 317 U.S. 269, 279 , 63 S.Ct. 236 , 87 L.Ed. 268 . This is not a case in which the court appointed counsel to provide assistance to a defendant in representing himself.

It is unnecessary to discuss Pike’s other contentions. They are either authoritatively decided by other cases that have come down since the appeal was taken or arise from circumstances that are unlikely to recur in the event of retrial.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the district court.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(“ ‘The right to act pro se * * * is a right arising out of the Federal Constitution and not the mere product of legislation or judicial decision.’ ”, quoting United States v. Plattner, 330 F.2d 271, 273 (2 Cir. 1964).)

Walker v. O. A. Loggins, 608 F.2d 731 (9th Cir. 1979)

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

United States v. Trunnell Levett Price, and Arnold Lewis Coffey474 F.2d 1223 (9th Cir. 1973)
The United States of America v. Ronald Paul Dujanovic486 F.2d 182 (9th Cir. 1973)
Joseph Anthony Meeks v. Walter Craven, Warden482 F.2d 465 (9th Cir. 1973)
Don Garriga Chapman v. United States553 F.2d 886 (5th Cir. 1977)
McCracken v. State518 P.2d 85 (Alaska 1974)
United States v. Dougherty473 F.2d 1113 (D.C. Cir. 1972)

Most recent

Paul Manning Walker v. O. A. Loggins, Superintendent608 F.2d 731 (9th Cir. 1979)
United States v. Barbara Ray Kizer569 F.2d 504 (9th Cir. 1978)
United States v. J564 F.2d 1329 (9th Cir. 1977)
Don Garriga Chapman v. United States553 F.2d 886 (5th Cir. 1977)
Arthur Earvin Stepp v. W. J. Estelle, Director, Texas Department of Corrections524 F.2d 447 (5th Cir. 1975)
McCracken v. State518 P.2d 85 (Alaska 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 2

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269 (1943)	1,811
	United States v. Plattner, 330 F.2d 271 (2d Cir. 1964)	127

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list