Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01409/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01409-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James K. Johnson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FILED 

United ~~ ! Co~rt of Appeals .. · ,, ,. r, .. l"•1ft 

JAN 2 21988 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

vs. 

Nos. 87-1386, 87-1409 

(D.C. Nos. 86-30011-02, 

86-30011-01) 

ROBERT E. WILLIAMS, JR., and 

JAMES K. JOHNSON, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

(D. Kansas) 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT, and MOORE, Circuit Judges. 

In this appeal, appellants raise seven issues arising o u t o f 

their conviction of attempted escape i n violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 75l(a). We have examined thes e iss ues and determined the y are 

without merit. We therefore a ffi rm the judgment of the district 

court. 

Appellants were i nmat es of the United States Peniten t ia r y at 

Leavenworth, Kansas, when the y became aware of their p e nding 

transfer to the institution a t Ma ri o n, Illinoi s. Because each 

feared the transfer for different reasons, they decided to escape 

confinement. Their elaborate efforts to achieve this end were 

frustrated, and the pending charges were filed against them. Both 

defendants entered conditional pleas pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 

ll(a)(2), and this appeal ensued. 

Appellate Case: 87-1409 Document: 010110024682 Date Filed: 01/22/1988 Page: 1 
• 

Defendants contend the trial court erred when, in denying 

their pretrial motion in limine, the court disallowed their 

asserted defense of duress. Because the defendants were unable to 

show they lacked sufficient time to present their fears to prison 

authorities (in light of the time their escape consumed, ample 

time was manifest) they were not entitled to the defense. United 

States v. Boomer, 571 F.2d 543 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 

911 (1978). 

Defendants contend their speedy trial rights were violated. 

We have examined the record, and we conclude the defendants' 

argument is predicated upon their failure to calculate time 

excludable under 18 U.S.C. § 316l (h )(l)(f). Their rights were not 

violated. 

Defendants contend because of their indigency the trial court 

erred in imposing a special assessment upon them pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3013(a)(2)(A). The imposition of the assessment is 

mandatory, and the statute makes no exception for indigent 

defendants. 

We have examined the remaining contentions, even though they 

were not orally argued, and have found them without merit. The 

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 87-1409 Document: 010110024682 Date Filed: 01/22/1988 Page: 2