Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

421 F.2d 131

Docket No. 27653

Bustillo v. United States

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Jan. 19, 1970.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1970-01-19

Cited by 11 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1973

7 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"Rule 12(b)(2) provides that a defect in the indictment must be objected to by motion before trial and that failure to object at that time waives such a defense. Bustillo did not object before trial, or at any other time during the proceeding on the merits, to the composition of the grand jury which indicted him. His failure to do so constituted a waiver so that he may not now for the first time assert such an objection." (p. 132)”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 3 Tenn. Crim. App. 204 - State Ex Rel. Henderson v. Russell, 267 So. 2d 647 - Foxworth v. State

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Scales v. United States · Murphy v. Houma Well Service · Shotwell Manufacturing Company v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1970-01-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Summary Calendar.

¶2*132Fernando P. Bustillo, pro se.

¶3Anthony J. P. Farris, U. S. Atty., James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellee.

¶4Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6Appellant, Fernando P. Bustillo, was indicted for the offense of bank robbery by force, violence, and intimidation in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113 (a) and (d) by a grand jury empaneled and sitting in Corpus Christi, Texas. He was represented by court appointed counsel, pled guilty, and on July 14,1967, received a sentence of fifteen years. Bustillo thereafter filed a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence, claiming that the grand jury which indicted him was defectively constituted. The court below denied the motion without a hearing and we affirm.1

¶7 Objections to the composition of a grand jury are governed by Rule 12(b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Shotwell Manufacturing Company v. United States, 1963, 371 U.S. 341, 83 S.Ct. 448, 9 L.Ed.2d 357. Rule 12(b) (2) provides that a defect in the indictment must be objected to by motion before trial and that failure to object at that time waives such a defense. Bustillo did not object before trial, or at any other time during the proceeding on the merits, to the composition of the grand jury which indicted him. His failure to do so constituted a waiver so that he may not now for the first time assert such an objection. Scales v. United States, 1961, 367 U.S. 203, 81 S.Ct. 1469, 6 L.Ed.2d 782; Jackson v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 394 F.2d 114, 115; Perez v. United States, 5 Cir. 1962, 303 F.2d 441.

¶8Appellant has not alleged nor have we discovered any cause for exercising the extraordinary power provided in Rule 12(b) (2) to grant relief from the waiver provisions of that rule. The decision of the court below is therefore affirmed.

/421/f2d/131 · .json · Public domain