From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Apel

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Apr 25, 2012
676 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2012)

Opinion

Nos. 11–50003 11–50004 11–50005.

2012-04-25

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. John Dennis APEL, Defendant–Appellant.United States of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. John Dennis Apel, Defendant–Appellant.United States of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. John Dennis Apel, Defendant–Appellant.

André Birotte, Jr., Robert E. Dugdale, and Mark R. Yohalem (argued), United States Attorney's Office, Los Angeles, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee. Erwin Chemerinsky, Selwyn Chu, law student (argued), and Matthew Plunkett, law student (argued), Appellate Litigation Clinic, University of California Irvine School of Law, Irvine, CA, for the defendant-appellant.


André Birotte, Jr., Robert E. Dugdale, and Mark R. Yohalem (argued), United States Attorney's Office, Los Angeles, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee. Erwin Chemerinsky, Selwyn Chu, law student (argued), and Matthew Plunkett, law student (argued), Appellate Litigation Clinic, University of California Irvine School of Law, Irvine, CA, for the defendant-appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. Nos. 2:10–cr–00830–JFW–1, 2:10–cr–00869–JFW–1, 2:10–cr–00831–JFW–1.Before: BARRY G. SILVERMAN and JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and JOHN R. TUNHEIM, District Judge.

The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant John Apel, who was subject to a pre-existing order barring him from Vandenberg Air Force Base, was convicted of three counts of trespassing on the base in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1382. After his convictions became final in district court, we decided United States v. Parker, 651 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir.2011). Parker held that because a stretch of highway running through Vandenberg AFB is subject to an easement “granted to the State of California, which later relinquished it to the County of Santa Barbara,” the federal government lacks the exclusive right of possession of the area on which the trespass allegedly occurred; therefore, a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1382 cannot stand, regardless of an order barring a defendant from the base. 651 F.3d at 1184.

Although we question the correctness of Parker, it is binding, dispositive of this appeal, and requires that Apel's convictions be REVERSED.


Summaries of

United States v. Apel

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Apr 25, 2012
676 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2012)
Case details for

United States v. Apel

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. John Dennis APEL…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Date published: Apr 25, 2012

Citations

676 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2012)
2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5300

Citing Cases

United States v. Apel

P. ___, 188 L. Ed. 2d, at 85. 676 F. 3d 1202, vacated and remanded.Benjamin J. Horwich argued the cause for…

United States v. Apel

PER CURIAM:On February 26, 2014, the United States Supreme Court vacated our opinion at 676 F.3d 1202 and…