Opinion ID: 553254
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Lack of an Indictment

Text: 14 Appellant Linares also argues that in light of the sentence the district judge imposed for his misdemeanor conviction, the prosecution improperly charged him by way of an information rather than by indictment. Linares notes that Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(a) requires that [a]n offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year ... shall be prosecuted by indictment or, if indictment is waived, it may be prosecuted by information. He also asserts that under this court's holding in United States v. Ramirez, 556 F.2d 909, 920 (9th Cir.1976), the failure to proceed by indictment in the prosecution of an offense which is punishable by more than one year violates the defendant's right not to be held to answer to an infamous crime except by indictment. Consequently, appellant concludes, because he did not waive indictment, the district court's imposition of a sentence that rendered him liable to imprisonment for more than a year violated both his right to be prosecuted by indictment under Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and his fifth amendment right not to be prosecuted for an infamous crime except by indictment. 3 15 Our decision today holds that Linares was not subject to a term of imprisonment of more than one year. He was thus not prosecuted for an infamous crime within the meaning of the fifth amendment. It is clear that appellant's prosecution initiated by information did not violate his right to be indicted for an infamous crime. 4