Court Opinion

ID: 9480042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:36:06.812322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:26.706916
License: Public Domain

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur in the court’s judgment, but write separately to express my view that the indictment here was never properly dismissed and, therefore, we need not decide whether to reinstate it.
The United States Attorney could not dismiss the indictment under Fed.R.Crim.P. 48(a) once a jury had convicted Villapudua-Perada of the drug charge against him. Rule 48(a) allows a United States Attorney to file a dismissal of an indictment with leave of court and, if during trial, with consent of the defendant. But Villapudua-Perada’s case had gone far beyond the indictment and trial stage when the United States Attorney moved for dismissal. In fact, a jury had already convicted Villapu-dua-Perada of selling narcotics when the United States Attorney filed the mistaken dismissal. A prosecution which has gone to conviction cannot be dismissed under Fed.R.Crim.P. 48(a). See Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d 591, 607 (9th Cir.1987) (“There is no precedent for applying Rule 48 to vacate a conviction after the trial and appellate proceedings have ended.”). Accordingly, I would find the United States Attorney’s filing of dismissal of the indictment to be a nullity and would affirm on this basis alone.