472 F.2d 1223 - United States v. Mitchell — 472 F.2d 1223

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently October 1995

12 federal appellate ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Suzanne E. Graber (argued), San Rafael, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

Thomas T. Couris, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Richard V. Boulger, Asst. U.S. Atty., Dwayne Keyes, U. S. Atty., Sacramento, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before KOELSCH, CHOY, and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Mitchell appeals from a conviction for willfully supplying false income-tax-withholding information in violation of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7205. His principal contention is that the district court erred when it granted his request to proceed in propria persona. The record reveals that Mitchell was clearly advised of his right to have counsel appointed. While we would have preferred the record to have shown that the district court had advised Mitchell more fully of the consequences of his choice (cf. Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 723-724, 68 S.Ct. 316, 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948)), or that it had instructed Mitchell to consult with an attorney for advice on the wisdom of dispensing with counsel (see A.B.A. Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Providing Defense Services Sec. 7.3 (1968)), we are persuaded that Mitchell's decision to defend himself was voluntary and intelligent within the meaning of Hodge v. United States, 414 F.2d 1040 (9th Cir. 1969) (en banc).

¶2

Other alleged errors discussed in the briefs do not suggest a basis for reversal.

¶3

Affirmed.