Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/754/877/319214/
Timestamp: 2020-03-28 13:31:11
Document Index: 783969015

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 371', '§ 1341', '§ 1341', '§ 1341', '§ 371', '§ 1341', '§ 1341', '§ 1341', '§ 1341']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Barney Girdner, Defendant-appellant, 754 F.2d 877 (10th Cir. 1985) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Tenth Circuit › 1985 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Barney Girdner, Defendant-appellant
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Barney Girdner, Defendant-appellant, 754 F.2d 877 (10th Cir. 1985)
US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - 754 F.2d 877 (10th Cir. 1985) Jan. 29, 1985
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Tenth Circuit R. 10(e). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Basically the conspiracy amounted to an effort to return false ballots, that is, those of persons who were not eligible to vote, in an effort to obtain a false result at the polls. This happened during the 1982 primary and runoff primary elections. On June 16, 1983, Girdner, Dan Draper Jr., Joe Fitzgibbon and Faye Newton, were indicted by a federal grand jury. In each of the indictments there was a charge of one count of conspiracy to use the United States mails in furtherance of a scheme to defraud the electorate of the 86th District of Oklahoma of a fair and honest election, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and nineteen counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Soon after the indictment Girdner came up on the charge. Girdner entered a plea of guilty to the conspiracy count. In exchange for the guilty plea, the government dismissed the remaining counts against Girdner and agreed not to prosecute several members of Girdner's family who were also involved in the conspiracy. Following the plea of guilty, Judge Seay of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma sentenced Girdner to five years imprisonment and a $5,000 fine on September 27, 1983. The present appeal followed.
There are two aspects connected with Girdner's attack on his conviction. First he contends that although he used the United States Mails fraudulently to procure absentee ballots and to return fraudulently completed absentee ballots to election officials for tabulation, this did not violate the federal mail fraud statute (18 U.S.C. § 1341). His argument is that 18 U.S.C. § 1341 only reaches use of the mails to defraud victims of their money or property. He reasons that since a conspiracy conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 371 requires a defendant to have conspired to commit a federal crime, his conspiracy conviction must fail if 18 U.S.C. § 1341 does not prohibit absentee ballot fraud specifically.
His argument that absentee ballot fraud does not violate this Sec. 1341 does not agree with the interpretation given that section by several courts of appeals. The mail fraud statute is broadly drawn and "generally prohibits any scheme or artifice to defraud which in some way involves the use of the postal system." United States v. Pearlstein, 576 F.2d 531, 534 (3d Cir. 1978). This court has recognized that use of the mails in furtherance of conspiracies to deprive citizens of intangible political rights violates 18 U.S.C. § 1341. See United States v. Primrose, 718 F.2d 1484 (10th Cir. 1983); United States v. Gann, 718 F.2d 1502 (10th Cir. 1983); United States v. Neal, 718 F.2d 1505 (10th Cir. 1983). Moreover, other circuits have specifically held that use of the postal system in absentee ballot fraud schemes violates 18 U.S.C. § 1341. United States v. Clapps, 732 F.2d 1148, 1153 (3d Cir. 1984); United States v. States, 488 F.2d 761, 764 (8th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 909, 94 S. Ct. 2605, 41 L. Ed. 2d 212 (1974); see also United States v. Odom, 736 F.2d 104, 116 n. 13 (4th Cir. 1984); United States v. Schafer, 726 F.2d 155 (4th Cir. 1984). We fully agree with the position taken by those courts and we now hold that the use of the postal system in furtherance of absentee ballot fraud schemes violates 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Inasmuch as the indictment correctly charges Girdner with an underlying federal crime, the indictment for conspiracy also charges a valid federal crime. Thus, appellant's conviction for conspiracy is also valid.
The second prong of his attack on his conviction asserts that since no other defendant has yet been finally convicted of conspiracy, his conspiracy conviction should also be vacated. Girdner's contention lacks merit. Defendants Draper and Fitzgibbon, whose convictions are now the subject of pending appeals, were not the only other participants in the absentee ballot fraud scheme. At the time Girdner entered his guilty plea, Judge Seay questioned him extensively in order to ensure that there was a factual basis for his plea. Girdner then indicated that at least two other persons, Faye Newton and John Harv Girdner, had participated with him in the ballot fraud scheme. This testimony adequately demonstrates the existence of a conspiracy, and furthermore it supports Girdner's conviction, even if Draper's and Fitzgibbon's convictions were to be vacated. See, e.g., Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367, 375, 71 S. Ct. 438, 443, 95 L. Ed. 344 (1951); United States v. Patterson, 678 F.2d 774, 781 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 911, 103 S. Ct. 219, 74 L. Ed. 2d 174 (1982).
Turning now to the sentence it is our conclusion that the attack which Girdner makes on that is completely without any merit. His sentence is within the statutory limits, but he asserts that because it is more severe than the sentences his co-defendants received after their trial, it violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. We disagree with this also. We have previously held that "absent specific allegations of constitutionally impermissible motives on the part of the trial court, a sentence within the statutory limits is * * * not open to review." United States v. Alfonso, 738 F.2d 369, 373 (10th Cir. 1984).