green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
20.5 score
“federal courts have consistently ruled that a criminal conviction provides sufficient grounds for revocation of probation even though an appeal from the conviction is still pending.”
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Kelly
federal courts have consistently ruled that a criminal conviction provides sufficient grounds for revocation of probation even though an appeal from the conviction is still pending.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Luke Goodon
United States v. Gentile, 610 F.2d 541, 542 (8th Cir.1979) Goodon also argues that the district court erred in finding that he failed to notify his probation officer within 72 hours of contact with law enforcement officers, as required by a condition of his supervised release.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Douglas E. Morse
See United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 363 (11th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1071 (1997); cf. United States v. Valdez, 146 F.3d 547, 552 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 355 (1998); United States v. Gentile, 610 F.2d 541, 542 (8th Cir. 1979).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hofierka
See United States v. Francischine, 512 F.2d 827, 828-29 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 931 , 96 S.Ct. 284 , 46 L.Ed.2d 261 (1975) (“[T]he underlying validity of a conviction cannot be asserted as a defense'in a probation revocation proceeding [and] the conviction’s validity may be collaterally attacked only in a separate proceeding under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 ... ,”). 11 See also United States v. Fleming, 9 F.3d 1253, 1254 (7th Cir.1993) (“The conviction itself, whether or not an appeal is taken, provides adequate proof of the violation of state law to justify revoking probation.”)…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard James Ellefson v. Herman Solem, Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary, and Mark Meierhenry, Attorney General, State of South Dakota
“Federal courts have consistently ruled that a criminal conviction provides sufficient grounds for revocation of probation even though an appeal from the conviction is still pending.” United States v. Gentile, 610 F.2d 541, 542 (8th Cir.1979) (order).
discussed
Cited "see"
Carlos Yammon Pena v. State
Habeeb, Annotation, Propriety of Revocation of Probation for Subsequent Criminal Conviction Which is Subject to Appeal, 76 A.L.R.3d 588 (1977). [123] A New Hampshire case is helpful: "[The great weight of authority in this country permits the revocation of probation based solely upon the probationer's subsequent eriminal conviction, even though that conviction is pending on appeal." Hutchinson v. State, 292 Md. 367 , 438 A.2d 1335, 1336 (Md.1982) (citing cases); see United States v. (Gentile, 610 F.2d 541, 542 (8th Cir.1979) ("Federal courts have consistently ruled that a erimi-nal conviction …
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Dempsey
See United States v. Gentile, 610 F.2d 541, 542 (8th Cir.1979); United States v. Lustig, 555 F.2d 751, 753 (9th Cir.1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Severs
See, United States v. Gentile, 610 F.2d 541 (8th Cir. 1979); United States v. Lustig, 555 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1977); Roberson v. State of Connecticut, 501 F.2d 305 (2d Cir. 1974); State v. Oppelt, 184 Mont. 48 , 601 P.2d 394 (1979); State v. Barnett, 112 Ariz. 212 , 540 P.2d 684 (1975); Gentry v. Warden, 167 Conn. 639 , 356 A.2d 902 (1975); State v. Chavez, 102 N.M. 279 , 694 P.2d 927 (N.M.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Sievers
See, United States v. Gentile, 610 F.2d 541 (8th Cir.1979); United States v. Lustig, 555 F.2d 751 (9th Cir.1977); Roberson v. State of Connecticut, 501 F.2d 305 (2d Cir.1974); State v. Oppelt, 184 Mont. 48 , 601 P.2d 394 (1979); State v. Barnett, 112 Ariz. 212 , 540 P.2d 684 (1975); Gentry v. Warden, 167 Conn. 639 , 356 A.2d 902 (1975); State v. Chavez, 102 N.M. 279 , 694 P.2d 927 (N.M.App.1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. David Fleming
See United States v. Gentile, 610 F.2d 541, 542 (8th Cir.1979) (“Federal courts have consistently ruled that a criminal conviction provides sufficient grounds for revocation of probation even though an appeal from the conviction is still pending.”); Roberson v. State of Connecticut, 501 F.2d 305, 308 (2d Cir.1974) (citing consensus among the circuits); cf. United States v. Lustig, 555 F.2d 751, 753 (9th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1045 , 98 S.Ct. 889 , 54 L.Ed.2d 796 (1978) (also considering excerpts of defendant’s testimony at trial).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hutchinson v. State
(2×)
See United States v. Gentile, 610 F.2d 541, 541-42 (8th Cir.1979); United States v. Garza, 484 F.2d 88, 89 (5th Cir.1973); United States v. Ambrose, 483 F.2d 742, 753-54 (6th Cir.1973); United States v. Carrion, 457 F.2d 808, 809 (9th Cir.1972) (per curiam); Buckelew v. State, 48 Ala. App. 418 , 265 So.2d 202 , 203-05 (1972); cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1060 , 93 S.Ct. 558 , 34 L.Ed.2d 512 (1972); Alexander v. State, 578 P.2d 591, 592-93 (Alaska 1978); State v. Barnett, 112 Ariz. 212 , 540 P.2d 684, 686 (1975); Rutledge v. State, 263 Ark. 300 , 564 S.W.2d 511 , *370 512 (1978); People v. Lathrom, 1…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Holcomb
See, e.g., United States v. Gentile, 610 F.2d 541 (8th Cir.1979); Pope v. Chew, 521 F.2d 400 (4th Cir.1975); United States v. Miller, 514 F.2d 41 (9th Cir.1975); United States v. Carrion, 457 F.2d 808 (9th Cir.1972); State v. Ruby, 650 P.2d 412 *461 (Alaska App.1982); Crawford v. State, 166 Ga.App. 272 , 304 S.E.2d 443 (1983); State v. Pearson, 424 So.2d 399 (La.App.1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Ellefson
See also United States v. Gentile, 610 F.2d 541 (8th Cir.1979); United States v. Garza, 484 F.2d 88 (5th Cir.1973); United States v. Carrion, 457 F.2d 808 (9th Cir.1972); Alexander v. State, 578 P.2d 591 (Alaska 1978); Rutledge v. State, 263 Ark. 300 , 564 S.W.2d 511 (1978); State v. Paterna, 62 Hawaii 159 , 612 P.2d 1168 (1980); Hutchinson v. State, 44 Md.App. 182 , 407 A.2d 359 (1979), aff’d, 292 Md. 367 , 438 A.2d 1335 (1982); Rubera v. Commonwealth, 371 Mass. 177 , 355 N.E.2d 800 (1976); Annot., 76 A.L.R.3d 588 (1977).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Kenneth W. GENTILE, Appellant
v.
Kenneth W. GENTILE, Appellant
79-1710.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Dec 10, 1979.
Richard L. Murray, Clayton, Mo., for appellant., Robert D. Kingsland, U. S. Atty., Larry D. Hale, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Lay, Bright, Stephenson.
Cited by 16 opinions | Published
ORDER
Appellant Kenneth W. Gentile appeals an order of the district court revoking his probation. Appellant argues that the district[*542] court abused its discretion in revoking probation because it relied upon a state criminal conviction which is being appealed and therefore has not yet become final. We reject this contention.
Federal courts have consistently ruled that a criminal conviction provides sufficient grounds for revocation of probation even though an appeal from the conviction is still pending. See Roberson v. State of Connecticut, 501 F.2d 305, 308 (2d Cir. 1974), and cases cited therein. A certified copy of the conviction is sufficient proof of the violation. United States v. Lustig, 555 F.2d 751, 753 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1045, 98 S.Ct. 889, 54 L.Ed.2d 796 (1978).
Affirmed.