U.S. v. Estate of Parsons

51 Citing cases

  1. U.S. v. Rich

    603 F.3d 722 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 22 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding restitution order does abate

    But fines already paid need not be refunded because they are the equivalent of time-served. United States v. Zizzo, 120 F.3d 1338, 1347 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding that a defendant who died during a pending appeal, but after paying a $50,000 fine and various other assessments, was not due the moneys because the payments "are analogous to time served and are not refundable") (citing Eleventh and Fifth Circuit cases); United States v. Parsons, Estate of, 367 F.3d 409, 417-18 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc); United States v. Logal, 106 F.3d 1547 (11th Cir. 1997). Thus, the government need not refund any payments on the $2,400 special fee assessment.

  2. U.S. v. Lay

    456 F. Supp. 2d 869 (S.D. Tex. 2006)   Cited 6 times

    I. Motion to Vacate and Dismiss Citing United States v. Estate of Parsons, 367 F.3d 409 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc), the estate argues that Lay's conviction should be vacated and that the indictment as it relates to Lay should be dismissed because Lay's death deprived him of his right to pursue a planned appeal. The estate asserts that Lay engaged counsel to file and prosecute an appeal, that on the morning of July 5, 2006, Lay was pronounced dead in Aspen, Colorado, and that by Order of the Probate Court No. 1 of Harris County, Texas, in Cause No. 365,466 entered on August 8, 2006, Letters Testamentary were issued to Linda P. Lay as Executrix of the Last Will and Testament of Kenneth L. Lay. In an unopposed motion filed on August 9, 2006, (Docket Entry No. 1079), the executrix sought leave to substitute the estate for Lay in this action so that the estate could file and prosecute the pending motion to vacate and dismiss.

  3. United States v. Volpendesto

    755 F.3d 448 (7th Cir. 2014)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that the defendant's "death has deprived us of the power to decide the merits, but it does not defeat our authority to resolve the appeal in response to the mootness of the underlying case"

    The question remains under what authority we may consider whether the restitution order abates on death. Courts that find restitution orders survive the defendant's death also find that the defendant's estate has standing to contest them. E.g. United States v. Mmahat, 106 F.3d 89, 93 (5th Cir.1997) (“Because the restitution order survives ... we grant the motion for [the defendant's] heirs to continue the appeal in his stead.”), rev'd by United States v. Estate of Parsons, 367 F.3d 409 (5th Cir.2004) (en banc); United States v. Christopher, 273 F.3d 294, 299 (3d Cir.2001) (restitution order “survives against the estate of the deceased convict”). Courts finding that restitution orders abate allow the defendant's attorney to present the issue on appeal without involving the defendant's estate. E.g., United States v. Rich, 603 F.3d 722, 724 n. 4 (9th Cir.2010) (“The government implies that Rich's attorneys cannot raise this argument without substitution of the estate, but substitution is not required.”).

  4. Commonwealth v. Hernandez

    481 Mass. 582 (Mass. 2019)   Cited 23 times
    Adopting this procedure

    Instead, everything associated with the case is extinguished, leaving the defendant as if he had never been indicted or convicted" (quotation and citation omitted). United States v. Estate of Parsons, 367 F.3d 409, 413 (5th Cir. 2004). The doctrine "is not grounded in the constitution or in statute, but is instead a court-created common law doctrine" (citation omitted).

  5. United States v. Libous

    858 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2017)   Cited 15 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Libous, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Nelson, we held that the Government could not retain a fine previously paid by a defendant when that defendant died while his appeal was pending.

    Instead, everything associated with the case is extinguished, leaving the defendant as if he had never been indicted or convicted." United States v. Estate of Parsons , 367 F.3d 409, 413 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Logal , 106 F.3d 1547, 1552 (11th Cir. 1997) ("Under the doctrine of abatement ab initio ... the defendant stands as if he never had been indicted or convicted." (internal quotation marks omitted)).

  6. State v. Burrell

    837 N.W.2d 459 (Minn. 2013)   Cited 14 times
    Identifying public policy considerations which support the continuation of a deceased criminal defendant’s appeal

    This rule is commonly referred to as the doctrine of abatement ab initio. United States v. Estate of Parsons, 367 F.3d 409, 413 (5th Cir.2004). When “death has deprived the accused of his right to” appellate review of his conviction, “the interests of justice ordinarily require that [the defendant] not stand convicted without resolution of the merits of his appeal, which is an integral part of our system for finally adjudicating his guilt or innocence.”

  7. People v. Johnson

    487 P.3d 1262 (Colo. App. 2020)   Cited 5 times

    Instead, everything associated with the case is extinguished, leaving the defendant as if he had never been indicted or convicted." Id. (quoting United States v. Estate of Parsons , 367 F.3d 409, 413 (5th Cir. 2004) ). ¶ 5 The doctrine of abatement ab initio rests on two principles.

  8. People v. Griffin

    328 P.3d 91 (Colo. 2014)   Cited 9 times
    Surveying cases in which the doctrine of abatement ab initio has been applied on direct appeal but concluding that it does not apply to a defendant's case if he dies while the petition for certiorari review is pending

    ¶ 4 The doctrine of abatement ab initio is not grounded in the constitution or in statute, but is instead a court-created common law doctrine. United States v. Estate of Parsons, 367 F.3d 409, 415 (5th Cir.2004). Under the doctrine, a defendant's death that occurs while his criminal conviction is pending on direct appeal “abates not only the appeal but also all proceedings had in the prosecution from its inception.” Crooker v. United States, 325 F.2d 318, 320 (8th Cir.1963) (citing J.C. Vance, Annotation, Effect, on Proceedings Below, of Death of Defendant Pending Appeal from Criminal Conviction, 83 A.L.R.2d 864 (1962) (collecting cases)).

  9. United States v. Coddington

    No. 18-1470 (10th Cir. Feb. 6, 2020)   Cited 5 times

    Our sister circuits have adopted the same doctrine. See United States v. Volpendesto, 755 F.3d 448, 452 (7th Cir. 2014) ("We and our sister circuits have recognized that death of a criminal defendant before appeal causes the case to become moot."); United States v. Christopher, 273 F.3d 294, 297 (3d Cir. 2001) (noting "the rule [is] followed almost unanimously by the Courts of Appeals" except for "one case . . . , but that view is based on an erroneous reading of that opinion"); United States v. Estate of Parsons, 367 F.3d 409, 413 n.7 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (citing cases from Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits dismissing appeals under doctrine). In Nelson v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 1249 (2017), the petitioners had paid restitution and then their convictions were reversed.

  10. United States v. Bourgeois

    CRIMINAL ACTION NO: 10-207 SECTION: "S" (2) (E.D. La. Jun. 19, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    The more modern finality/appellate rights rationale is based on the principle that abatement protects the appellate right, and reflects the fact that if a conviction has not been tested, and due to the defendant's death cannot be tested by an appeal, it is not truly final, and it would be unjust to allow the conviction to stand. United States v. Parsons, 367 F.3d 409, 413 (5th Cir. 2004)(en banc). The older punishment rationale is based upon the notion that the purpose of criminal proceedings is penal, and death ends any possibility of punishing the accused, making further action by the court superfluous and moot.