From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Johnson

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 31, 1969
415 F.2d 1130 (9th Cir. 1969)

Summary

holding that warning letter was not "such total forgiveness" of the probation violation as to bar the district court from considering it as grounds for revocation

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Shampang

Opinion

No. 23759.

August 26, 1969. Rehearing Denied October 31, 1969.

Peter Heintz (argued), Sacramento, Cal., for appellant.

William B. Shubb (argued), Special Asst. U.S. Atty., Cecil F. Poole, U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Before MERRILL and ELY, Circuit Judges, and KILKENNY District Judge.

Hon. John F. Kilkenny, United States District Judge, District of Oregon, sitting by designation.


This appeal is from an order revoking probation. In 1966 Johnson pleaded guilty to the offense of dispensing narcotic drugs in an unstamped package (26 U.S.C. § 4704(a)) and was awarded probation by the same district judge who made the order in question. In 1967 Johnson entered a plea of guilty to second degree burglary in a California state court. This came to the attention of the district judge, who then advised Johnson that he was placed on "final warning" status. In 1968 Johnson pleaded guilty to traffic violations arising out of an automobile collision. After a series of evidentiary hearings, the District Court, on Nov. 26, 1968, made the order which is now challenged.

Johnson's counsel argues, quite forcefully, that the District Court, having "forgiven" Johnson for the state burglary offense, revoked the probation upon the basis of minor traffic violations alone and thus so grossly abused its discretion that we should intervene. We cannot accept the argument. In the first place, we do not interpret the "warning" letter as such total forgiveness of the California crime that the district judge, after having written the letter, was thereafter required to eliminate the offense from his consideration for all future time. Secondly, although the subsequent state law traffic violations, if viewed in isolation, were relatively minor, it is obvious that the District Court considered them to be the "straw that broke the camel's back." Probation was originally granted as a matter of grace, and we cannot hold that the court which extended the favor was, in the circumstances, disempowered to revoke it.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

United States v. Johnson

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 31, 1969
415 F.2d 1130 (9th Cir. 1969)

holding that warning letter was not "such total forgiveness" of the probation violation as to bar the district court from considering it as grounds for revocation

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Shampang
Case details for

United States v. Johnson

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert JOHNSON…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 31, 1969

Citations

415 F.2d 1130 (9th Cir. 1969)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Shampang

Absent prejudice, therefore, a delay motivated by "a desire to utilize the rehabilitation process rather than…

United States v. Taylor

Probation is a matter of grace rather than right, and the granting or revoking of a period of probation are…