Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 23 views

    United States v. Hodge, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order revoking Joseph Hodge's supervised release and sentencing him to additional time in prison and supervised release. Hodge's counsel argued he was not competent to participate in the revocation proceeding, but the appeals court found no merit to this claim as Hodge did not show he was unable to rationally consult with his lawyer or understand the proceeding against him. The appeals court conducted an independent review of the record and found no other meritorious issues for appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Hodge, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    23 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order revoking Joseph Hodge's supervised release and sentencing him to additional time in prison and supervised release. Hodge's counsel argued he was not competent to participate in the revocation proceeding, but the appeals court found no merit to this claim as Hodge did not show he was unable to rationally consult with his lawyer or understand the proceeding against him. The appeals court conducted an independent review of the record and found no other meritorious issues for appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-01-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-4518

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order revoking Joseph Hodge's supervised release and sentencing him to additional time in prison and supervised release. Hodge's counsel argued he was not competent to participate in the revocation proceeding, but the appeals court found no merit to this claim as Hodge did not show he was unable to rationally consult with his lawyer or understand the proceeding against him. The appeals court conducted an independent review of the record and found no other meritorious issues for appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    23 views2 pages

    United States v. Hodge, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order revoking Joseph Hodge's supervised release and sentencing him to additional time in prison and supervised release. Hodge's counsel argued he was not competent to participate in the revocation proceeding, but the appeals court found no merit to this claim as Hodge did not show he was unable to rationally consult with his lawyer or understand the proceeding against him. The appeals court conducted an independent review of the record and found no other meritorious issues for appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 02-4518

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JOSEPH LONNIE HODGE,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
    Chief District Judge. (CR-02-19)

    Submitted:

    January 16, 2003

    Decided:

    January 22, 2003

    Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Matthew A. Victor, VICTOR, VICTOR & HELGOE, L.L.P., Charleston,


    West Virginia, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
    Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Joseph L. Hodge pleaded guilty to violating the terms of his
    supervised release.

    The district court entered an order revoking

    Hodges supervised release, and sentencing him to eleven months


    incarceration and twenty-five months of supervised release. Hodges
    counsel has filed an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
    738 (1967), asserting Hodge was not competent to participate in the
    proceeding.
    unable

    to

    Hodges claim is meritless.


    rationally

    consult

    with

    Hodge cannot show he was

    his

    lawyer,

    or

    unable

    to

    understand the proceeding against him. Dusky v. United States, 362


    U.S. 402, 402 (1960) (per curiam)); United States v. Mason, 52 F.3d
    1286, 1289 (4th Cir. 1995).
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court order. United States
    v. Hodge, No. CR-02-19 (M.D.N.C. July 2, 2002). In accordance with
    Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and find no
    other meritorious issues for appeal.

    This court requires that

    counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the


    Supreme Court of the United States for further review.

    If the

    client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that


    such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this
    court for leave to withdraw from representation.

    Counsels motion

    must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like