United States v. Rick Allen Apker, 419 F.2d 388 (9th Cir. 1969). · Go Syfert
United States v. Rick Allen Apker, 419 F.2d 388 (9th Cir. 1969). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
27 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 18 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Reich v. Warden of San Quentin State Prison (cand, 2024-05-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1970 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1970 1998 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reich v. Warden of San Quentin State Prison
N.D. Cal. · 2024 · confidence medium
See United States v. Brown, 59 F.3d 102 , 103–04 (9th 5 Cir. 1995) (holding that the Clause did not bar criminal charges where prisoner had already been 6 punished in prison disciplinary proceedings with a loss of good-time credit and disciplinary 7 transfer); see also id. at 105 (“[W]ithholding of good time credit ... [does] not constitute 8 punishment for double jeopardy purposes[.]”); United States v. Apker, 419 F.2d 388, 388 (9th 9 Cir.1969) (holding that segregated confinement after escape attempt did not preclude criminal 10 prosecution for same conduct); Baldovinos v. Copenhaver, …
cited Cited as authority (rule) Larry Odoms v. Robert Borg
9th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Kerns v. Parratt, 672 F.2d 690, 691 (8th Cir.1982) (per curiam); United States v. Apker, 419 F.2d 388, 388 (9th Cir.1969) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mott v. State
Tex. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
See United States v. Rising, 867 F.2d 1255, 1259 (10th Cir.1989); Kerns v. Parrat, 672 F.2d 690, 692 (8th Cir.1982); United States v. Stuckey, 441 F.2d 1104, 1106 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 841 (1971); Gilchrest v. United States, 427 F.2d 1132, 1133 (5th Cir.1970); United States v. Apker, 419 F.2d 388, 388 (9th Cir.1969).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Reggie Neon Brown
9th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Apker, 419 F.2d 388, 388 (9th Cir.1969) (holding that segregated confinement after escape attempt did not preclude criminal prosecution for same conduct).
discussed Cited "see" Alexander v. Maass
9th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Apker, 419 F.2d 388, 388 (9th Cir.1969) (per curiam) (fact that inmate, after attempting to escape might have been placed in confinement by prison officials and subsequently convicted and sentenced did not constitute double jeopardy); accord United States v. Rising, 867 F.2d 1255, 1259 (10th Cir.1989) (administrative punishment imposed by prison officials does not render subsequent criminal proceeding violative of due process clause). 6 Alexander also argues that his placement in DSU violated his eighth amendment, equal protection and due process rights.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Monte Berrett
9th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Apker, 419 F.2d 388, 388 (9th Cir.1969) (per curiam) (fact that inmate, after attempting to escape might have been placed in confinement by prison officials and subsequently convicted and sentenced under section 751 did not constitute double jeopardy); accord United States v. Rising, 867 F.2d 1255, 1259 (10th Cir.1989) (administrative punishment imposed by prison officials did not render subsequent criminal proceeding violative of due process clause). 8 Finally, Berrett did not appeal his conviction.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Lance Nevell
9th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Apker, 419 F.2d 388, 388 (9th Cir.1969) (per curiam) (fact that inmate after attempting to escape might have been placed in confinement by prison officials and subsequently convicted and sentenced did not constitute double jeopardy); accord United States v. Rising, 867 F.2d 1255, 1259 (10th Cir.1989) (prison administrative punishment does not render subsequent criminal proceeding violative of double jeopardy).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Commonwealth v. Boyd
Mass. · 1975 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Apker, 419 F. 2d 388 (9th Cir. 1969); United States v. Lepiscopo, 429 F. 2d 258, 261 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. den. 400 U. S. 948 *177 (1970); Hutchison v. United States, 450 F. 2d 930, 931 (10th Cir. 1971). 4.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Derewood Bible v. State of Arizona, Frank A. Eyman, Warden, Arizona State Prison
9th Cir. · 1971 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Apker, 419 F.2d 388 (9th Cir. 1969); Mullican v. United States 252 F.2d 398, 400 (5th Cir. 1958).
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Rick Allen APKER, Defendant-Appellant
23692.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dec 10, 1969.
419 F.2d 388
David M. Rothman (argued), Los An-geles, Cal., for defendant-appellant., Michael J. Lightfoot (argued), Robert L. Brosio, Asst. U. S. Attys., Wm. Matthew Byrne, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Ely, Trask, Pence.
Cited by 27 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Apker, an inmate of a Federal Correctional Institution was charged, tried by jury, convicted of Attempted Escape under 18 U.S.C. § 751 and sentenced therefor to 45 days imprisonment, to run consecutively to any other sentences previously imposed.

The evidence before the jury was more than sufficient to support its verdict that Apker was unequivocally activating what may have well been a foolhardy attempt to escape, when he was caught. This court cannot fault that verdict.

That Apker, after being caught, may, thereupon and therefor have been placed in segregated confinement by the institutional officials for 37 days and subsequently convicted and sentenced to confinement by a Federal court for the same acts does not constitute “double jeopardy” under the Fifth Amendment. United States v. Shapiro, 383 F.2d 680, 683 (7th Cir.1967); Rush v. United States, 290 F.2d 709, 710 (5th Cir.1961); Mullican v. United States, 252 F.2d 398, 400, 70 A.L.R.2d 1217 (5th Cir.1958); Patterson v. United States, 183 F.2d 327, 328 (4th Cir.1950); Pagliaro v. Cox, 143 F.2d 900, 901 (8th Cir.1944).

Affirmed.