Legal Opinion
United States v. Jose De Jesus Villegas-Codallos
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided October 28, 1976No. 75-3023PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Per curiam
Appellant has appealed from an order forfeiting his bail when he failed to appear for his Omnibus Hearing. Appellant fled to Mexico after he was released on bail, and he has been a fugitive ever since.
Under these circumstances, we decline to adjudicate appellant’s case. As the Supreme Court stated in Molinaro v. New Jersey (1970) 96 U.S. 365, 366, 90 S.Ct. 498, 24 L.Ed.2d 586: “No persuasive reason exists why this Court should proceed to adjudicate the merits of a criminal case after the convicted defendant who has sought review escapes from the restraints placed upon him pursuant to the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Molinaro v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Smith v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- United States v. SimmonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Bohanan v. NebraskaSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
3Cited by5 opinions
- United States v. WoodCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1976
- United States v. Lamthong Sudthisa-ArdCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- United States v. Guillermo Lujan, Myrna Lujan, Sunshine Bail Bonding Company and Stuyvesant Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979
- United States v. Scott Wood, United States of America v. Jose Beltran-Leon, United States of America v. George L. Martinez, United States of America v. Jose Velasquez-LedesmaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1977
- State v. BeckCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1979