Schreiner v. United States, 404 U.S. 67 (1971). · Go Syfert
Search
Schreiner v. United States, 404 U.S. 67 (1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the crime of larceny obviously continues as long as the asportation continues . . . .”
201 citation events (39 in the last 25 years) across 34 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Williams (ca3, 2003-09-18)
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971 1998 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) United States v. Williams
3rd Cir. · 2003 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the crime of larceny obviously continues as long as the asportation continues . . . .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Charles Ahumada v. United States
8th Cir. · 2021 · confidence medium
Compare Jackson, 217 F.3d at 364-65 (no constitutional right to counsel for petition for rehearing); McNeal, 54 F.3d at 776, *2 (same), with Taylor v. United States, 822 F.3d 84, 90 (2d Cir. 2016) (holding “that the CJA entitles defendants to representation in filing non-frivolous petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc,” but not addressing constitutional grounds); United States v. Howell, 37 F.3d 1207, 1209 (7th Cir. 1994) (the CJA, CJA plan, and Rule 44 “make it clear that the defendant in a direct criminal appeal has the right to have the continued representation of appointed co…
cited Cited "see" METZLER CONTRACTING CO. LLC v. Stephens
D. Haw. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Friedman, 445 F.2d 1076 , 1085 n. 4 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 958 , 92 S.Ct. 326 , 30 L.Ed.2d 275 ... (1971).
cited Cited "see" State v. Soto
Haw. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Friedman, 445 F.2d 1076 , 1085 n. 4 (9th Cir.), cert, denied 404 U.S. 958 , 92 S.Ct. 326 , 30 L.Ed.2d 275 ... (1971).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Willis
10th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Von Roeder, 435 F.2d 1004, 1010 (10th Cir. 1970) (escape phase is not “an event occurring ‘after the robbery.’ It is part of the robbery.”), vacated on other grounds, 404 U.S. 67 (1971); Balano, 618 F.2d at 631 (“escape phase doctrine was developed to deal with those who are entangled in the consummation of the crime itself, such as getaway car drivers”).
examined Cited "see" United States v. Robert Lee Willis (3×)
10th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Von Roeder, 435 F.2d 1004, 1010 (10th Cir.1970) (escape phase is not “an event occurring ‘after the robbery.’ It is part of the robbery.”), vacated on other grounds, 404 U.S. 67 , 92 S.Ct. 326 , 30 L.Ed.2d 222 (1971); Balano, 618 F.2d at 631 (“escape phase doctrine was developed to deal with those who áre entangled in the consummation of the crime itself, such as getaway ear drivers”).
cited Cited "see" United States v. James E. Smith
9th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Friedman, 445 F.2d 1076, 1082 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 958 , 92 S.Ct. 326 , 30 L.Ed.2d 275 (1971).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Melvin
5th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Friedman, 445 F.2d 1076 , 1085 n. 4 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 958 , 92 S.Ct. 326 , 30 L.Ed.2d 275 (1971).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Melvin
5th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Friedman, 445 F.2d 1076 , 1085 n. 4 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 958 , 92 S.Ct. 326 , 30 L.Ed.2d 275 (1971).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Dale Murray, Paul Leahey, Ronald Vanderbosch, Lawrence Tower, and Linton Sherlock
2d Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Friedman, 445 F.2d 1076, 1084 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 958 , 92 S.Ct. 326 , 30 L.Ed.2d 275 (1971).
cited Cited "see" United States v. George E. Girard, Jr., Paul A. Lambert
2d Cir. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Friedman, 445 F.2d 1076, 1087 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 958 , 92 S.Ct. 326 , 30 L.Ed.2d 275 (1971) (transcript of grand jury proceedings).
discussed Cited "see" In the Matter of a Grand Jury Subpoena Served Upon David Doe
2d Cir. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Friedman, 445 F.2d 1076, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 958 , 92 S.Ct. 326 , 30 L.Ed.2d 275 (1971); United States v. Bob, 106 F.2d 37, 40 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 308 U.S. 589 , 60 S.Ct. 115 , 84 L.Ed. 493 (1939).
discussed Cited "see" Davis v. United States (2×)
D.C. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Friedman, 445 F.2d 1076 (9,th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 958 , 92 S.Ct. 326 , 30 D.Ed.2d 275 (1971) (conspiracy to obtain and disseminate secret grand jury testimony joined with counts charging possession and use of unreleased grand jury transcripts, perjury, and obstruction of justice); United States v. Roselli, 432 F.2d 879 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 924 , 91 S.Ct. 883 , 27 L.Ed.2d 828 (1971) (conspiracy to violate and substantive violations of anti-racketeering statutes joined with counts charging false statements on tax returns); Hag gard v. United Stat…
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Michael O'LOOney (2×)
unknown court · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Friedman, 445 F.2d 1076, 1083-84 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 958 , 92 S.Ct. 326 , 30 L.Ed.2d 275 (1971).
examined Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Smith (3×)
4th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
Wilkins, 441 U.S. at 469 , 99 S.Ct. 1829 ; see also Schreiner v. United States, 404 U.S. 67, 67 , 92 S.Ct. 326 , 30 L.Ed.2d 222 (1971) (per curiam) (invoicing the CJA and remanding to court of appeals for reentry of judgment and appointment of counsel to assist with seeking review in the Supreme Court).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Nnebe v. United States
2d Cir. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Id.; see also Schreiner v. United States, 404 U.S. 67, 67 (1971) 11 (providing that the remedy for CJA counsel’s failure to file a timely certiorari petition upon his 12 client’s request is to re-enter the appellate judgment and appoint new counsel to file a timely 13 petition).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Nnebe v. United States (3×)
2d Cir. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id.; see also Schreiner v. United States, 404 U.S. 67, 67 , 92 S.Ct. 326 , 30 L.Ed.2d 222 (1971) (providing that the remedy for CJA counsel’s failure to file a timely certiorari petition upon his client’s request is to re-enter the appellate judgment and appoint new counsel to file a timely petition).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." OKC Corp. v. Williams
N.D. Tex. · 1978 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., United States v. Friedman, 445 F.2d 1076, 1087 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 958 , 92 S.Ct. 326 , 30 L.Ed.2d 275 (1971); Laughner v. United States, 373 F.2d 326 , 327 n.1 (5th Cir. 1967).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Schreiner
v.
United States
71-5294.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 16, 1971.
404 U.S. 67
Douglas.
Cited by 37 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 84%
Citer courts: Third Circuit (1)

Lead Opinion

Per Curiam.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings, including re-entry of its judgment affirming petitioner’s conviction and consideration of the appointment of counsel for petitioner in connection with seeking review in this Court of the judgment of the Court of Appeals. 18 U. S. C. §§ 3006A (c), 3006A (d) (6), 3006A (g). See also H. R. Rep. No. 1709, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1964); Report of the Committee to Implement the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, presented to a Special Session of the Judicial Conference of the United States, 36 F. R. D. 285, 291 (1965); Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 44 (a); Doherty v. United States, ante, p. 28.

Concurrence

Mr. Justice Douglas,

concurring.

Schreiner has a statutory right to the assistance of a lawyer in drafting his petition for certiorari. As I indicated in Doherty v. United States, ante, p. 29, that right is not conditioned on counsel’s appraisal of the merits of the petition. No conditions are attached to rights under Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 44 and the Criminal Justice Act of 1964. This view was adopted by the[*68] Judicial Conference’s Committee to Implement the Criminal Justice Act:

“[C]ounsel appointed on appeal should advise the defendant of his right to initiate a further review by the filing of a petition for certiorari, and to file such petition, if requested by the defendant.” Report of the Committee to Implement the Criminal Justice Act, 36 F. R. D. 285, 291 (1965).

Moreover, the Tenth Circuit has implemented this suggestion. See 1A West’s Federal Forms, Supreme Court, §488 (B. Boskey ed. 1969).

There may well be instances where the remedy sought is inappropriate — e. g., an effort to obtain mandamus where the duty is only discretionary. The statute does not, however, permit an indigent’s right to be conditioned upon the fortuity of whether a lawyer believes this Court will grant his petition. We ourselves often have difficulty making that prophecy.