Case Name: Robert GRAY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1963-05-02
Citations: 319 F.2d 725
Docket Number: No. 16972
Parties: Robert GRAY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Judges: Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, and Burger and Wright, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 319
Pages: 725–729

Head Matter:
Robert GRAY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 16972.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Sept. 11, 1962.
Decided May 2, 1963.
Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied En Banc June 11, 1963.
See also 214 F.Supp. 848.
Mr. Charles R. Cutler, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), with whom Mr. Joseph DuCoeur, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Barry Sidman, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Aeheson, U. S. Atty., Joel D. Blackwell, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Nathan J. Paulson, Asst. U. S. Atty. at the time of argument, were on the brief, for appellee.
Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, and Burger and Wright, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a conviction of murder in the second degree. The primary issue presented relates to the denial, without prejudice, of appellant's pro se motion asking for a mental examination. At the time the motion was filed, appellant was represented by counsel of record. Counsel, as well as appellant, was notified of the court's action. The motion was not re-urged and on trial appellant's counsel specifically eschewed raising the mental issue. Appellant, with new counsel on appeal, argues that the pro se motion should have been granted.
It was reasonable for the trial court to assume, in denying the motion without prejudice, that if the appellant, after consultation with his lawyer, wanted to press the motion, it would be refiled. The motion for mental examination was not refiled and the mental issue was not raised. Consequently, nothing is presented for review. Compare Johnson v. United States, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 187, 189, 290 F.2d 378, 380 (1961).
The other claims of error urged by appellant have been considered by the court. They are without support in this record.
Affirmed.