Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Eddie Cook, 71-1854 (1971)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 71-1854 Visitors: 14
Filed: Dec. 27, 1971
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 450 F.2d 339 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie COOK, Defendant-Appellant. No. 71-1854 Summary Calendar. * United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Nov. 17, 1971. Rehearing Denied Dec. 27, 1971. Craig Wilson, West Palm Beach, Fla. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant. Robert W. Rust, U. S. Atty., Marsha Lyons, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee. Before BELL, AINSWORTH, and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: 1 Appellant was convicted on two co
More

450 F.2d 339

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Eddie COOK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 71-1854 Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 17, 1971.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 27, 1971.

Craig Wilson, West Palm Beach, Fla. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.

Robert W. Rust, U. S. Atty., Marsha Lyons, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before BELL, AINSWORTH, and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant was convicted on two counts of an indictment charging violations of 18 U.S.C.A. Secs. 495 and 2, in forging and uttering a United States Treasury check, and on another count charging possession of a stolen treasury check in violation of 18 U.S.C.A., Sec. 1708. He received concurrent sentences on the convictions and now appeals. We affirm.

2

There are three assignments of error. The first complaints of the cross-examination by the prosecution with respect to prior convictions of appellant. This complaint is without merit. See United States v. Saitta, 5 Cir., 1971, 443 F.2d 830, 831.

3

Next, it is urged that the trial judge invaded the province of the jury through a comment on the conflicts in the evidence. This event does not remotely approach error and thus is without merit.

4

Lastly, appellant contends that he was denied his Miranda1 rights in connection with oral and written inculpatory statements. A careful review of the facts as developed on a motion to suppress and on the trial leads us to the conclusion that this claim is likewise without merit.

5

Affirmed.

*

Rule 18, 5 Cir., see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer