Opinion ID: 1104462
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the trial court committed reversible error in proceeding with trial, entry of final judgment and sentencing of appellant following removal to federal court

Text: Appellant filed a Petition for Removal of her case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443. On the date of trial the State and appellant announced ready for trial and voir dire of the jury began at 10:00 a.m. The Petition for Removal was received at 1:15 p.m. by the clerk of the Circuit Court of Pearl River County. After the jury found the appellant guilty and the appellant was sentenced, the trial judge directed the clerk to withhold the entry of the order of conviction on the minutes of this Court until final disposition has been made by the Federal Court on said alledged [sic] Petition of Removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1) as amended provides: A petition for removal of a criminal prosecution shall be filed not later than thirty days after the arraignment in the State court, or at any time before trial, whichever is earlier, except that for good cause shown the United States district court may enter an order granting the petitioner leave to file the petition at a later time. In United States ex rel. Walker v. Gunn, 511 F.2d 1024, 1027 (9th Cir.1975) the Court held that the phrase before trial means before proceedings for empanelling the jury and a removal petition filed after a number of jurors had been selected was untimely. The record indicates that the petition was filed and notice to the Pearl River County Circuit Clerk was given after appellant's trial began. Even if the removal is considered timely for the sake of argument, 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(3) states the following: The filing of a petition for removal of a criminal prosecution shall not prevent the State court in which such prosecution is pending from proceeding further, except that a judgment of conviction shall not be entered unless the petition is first denied. This was done in this case. Therefore, there is no merit to appellant's assignment of error.