United States v. Hendrix, Clarence , 280 F. App'x 540 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                             NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
    To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
    United
    To be citedStates       Court
    only in accordance      of R.Appeals
    with Fed.  App. P.
    32.1Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
    For the Seventh Circuit
    Chicago, Illinois 60604
    Submitted May 29, 2008∗
    Decided June 2, 2008
    Before
    FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge
    KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge
    DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
    No. 07-2869
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                        Appeal from the United
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                                        States District Court for the
    Northern District of Illinois,
    v.                                                Eastern Division.
    CLARENCE HENDRIX,                                                No. 04 CR 757
    Defendant-Appellant.                                        James B. Zagel, Judge.
    Order
    After we affirmed his conviction, 
    482 F.3d 962
    (7th Cir. 2007), Clarence Hendrix
    filed in the district court a motion contending that newly discovered evidence calls for a
    new trial. The district court denied this motion as untimely, and Hendrix has appealed.
    Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b)(1) allows a defendant “3 years after the verdict or finding
    of guilty” to file a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
    The jury found Hendrix guilty on May 12, 2005. He therefore had until May 12, 2008, to
    ∗ This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After
    examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R.
    App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).
    No. 07-2869                                                                  Page 2
    file a motion under Rule 33(b)(1). His motion, which was filed on May 16, 2007, is
    timely. The district court did not give any reason for its contrary decision, nor does the
    prosecutor’s brief on appeal supply one.
    The prosecutor contends that the motion is substantively deficient because the
    evidence on which Hendrix relies is not newly discovered and would not justify a new
    trial even if it were new. But that question should be considered in the first instance by
    the district court.
    The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for a decision on the merits.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-2869

Citation Numbers: 280 F. App'x 540

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 6/2/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023