*1 Greenhalgh, Mr. Asst. U. William W. Atty., WILDEBLOOD, Appellant, whom Messrs. Oliver S. with O. Warren Gaseh, Atty., Belcher, U. S. Carl W. Atty., brief, Asst. on the U. S. were America, UNITED STATES appellee. Cohen, Mr. Jerome Asst. U. Atty., filed, S. at the time record was appearance appellee. also entered an Edgerton, Before Bastían Bur- Circuit. District of Columbia Judges. ger, Circuit 11, 1959. Argued Sept. 19, 1959. Decided Nov. BURGER,
By January 7, an information filed on 1959, appellant charged was with solicit- purpose for lewd and immoral (Supp. violation of Title 22 D.C.Code VII, 1959), Section 2701. His case was continued three times before he entered plea guilty February of not on day On the same he was tried in the (sitting jury) without a guilty charged. and found He upon pay sentenced conviction to fine twenty-five dollars or to serve a term days jail. of ten 1959, February 4, On twenty-five his fine of dollars was paid Clerk Court. Appellant pro se filedan allowance of from this with Appeals the Clerk of the Court of February 6, on 1959. His plication, having been submitted to and considered the Chief and both Judges, being Associate and each of them that the denied, was ordered to be denied on February 17, 1959, in accordance with Title 11 Section 772. Appellant petitioned this court for leave to file an pauperis in forma from Court of February 25, 1959. This granted petition court on March By order of June appeal, reserving court allowed his deci- jurisdiction sion as to until the the case. urges Appellant first, that the the fine does not render the is- Cooper, Washington, Grover C. second, Mr. moot for sues C., Fisher, D. with whom Mr. Ben C. to review have the action (both Washington, appointed by D. C. be- court) brief, appel- was on the provide the Clerk failed to cause as- lant. pro sistance se as con- *2 templated by (1951), peals power the Title D.C.Code to under exercise its 772(a), third, statute, appellant Section dis- and because’ the concedes is which Appeals ap- grant deny Municipal appeal. cretionary, to Court failed to or an of point counsel to assist in argues The that “Con- Government senting application his of for allowance gress appeal that the intended [from appeal. an Municipal Municipal Court Court the to argues, appel The Government and only Appeals] of should be reviewable concedes, appeal lant is as that there no by application Municipal to of the Court right Municipal matter of a to the Court Appeals experience because had shown imposed Appeals penalty of where the it in that interest of that the is less than The $50.1 Government speedy determination, be a final and argued appeal in the that the alternative appeal right and that serve would of by payment was rendered moot bring expense confusion, to about and actually imposed that even $25 fine and delay.” unnecessary granting action of the can, accept arguendo, We all this as Appeals Municipal should be the true. it But is not in the conflict with affirmed as correct. Municipal idea that before the of Court not all the contentions We need reach Appeals passes grant on whether to or appellant2 to us to resolve what seems of deny appeal this, in case such as grow- question important and the critical grave turpitude and an ing appellant was the out of the fact that stigma, person seeking indelible the the by represented his effort counsel in not Ap- Municipal xeview should have persuade of assistance Court of to the any opinion by aggrieved one “Any party order of them are final of tbe the appeal Municipal allowed, appeal for should be the Court shall of The or by Columbia, granted, be recorded as and the as created case set of tbe District subchapter appeal, down for I, Juvenile Court and or the of preferred Columbia, may calendar, status on the District of Municipal right heard in the same manner as to The as of therefrom peals judge said of Co in If the the District chief for of Court judges to and both associate also taken shall be of be lumbia. right the inter from all de- as of said court locutory nied, Municipal such denial Court shall stand an af- The orders of whereby firmance of the of trial Columbia the of District for the court, changed property or from which there shall fur- possession be no of the dissolving of ther writs as orders such affected Provided, how like: and the attachment the “After effective date of sub- judgments the ever, of reviews chapter, That of appeals, no writs of error or ex- branch of conciliation cept respect claims and judgments small in of theretofore of Municipal the District of rendered, Court granted by the be shall the United judgments in Columbia, reviews of of for the District where the court branch criminal of to of Columbia the said Court $50, imposed is than penalty less (Em- or to the said Juvenile Court.” application by allow phasis added.) shall (1951), Title in said filed 772(a). ance Section of application Appeals. shall Said of Court simple language, Congress 2. It form, clear to seems us did a standard be on prescribed by by for the not intend Title 11 D.C.Code Court The 772(a), appeal grant to When Section assistance Columbia. of District indigents counsel, represented by via the staff to of the Clerk’s party is not duty pre duty At most Office. “the the clerh to clerk be the it shall application” to review pare behalf. to in The is limited ministerial or filed clerical shall be assist- application for filling required Dis ance in out the forms Court questions. days from raise the No other three intent could within Columbia trict Congress prompt making judgment. be ascribed shall be without It the date public chief the Clerk’s Office a defender office ly presented the clerk judges obviously —a for which task associate judge each any equipped. they If staffed consideration. their reviewing EDGERTON, for the his claim attention. opinion. I concur BURGER’S We need not now consider 29(b) Rule enforcing are covers convic- applica- *3 provides Rules turpitude; involving tions not moral appeal “shall of an tion allowance a; (2) days” whether 10 “$25.00 or proceed- sufficient recital of contain a ings * * * “penalty $50”; (3) less than reasonably evidence, performed whether the Clerk his statu- rulings sought ruling re- to be tory duty application”; “to may filed a viewed. With (4) 11- § points and au- the law upon.” brief statement of 606, authorizing imprisonment for non- Nearly relied thorities payment fine, of a is constitutional. appellant’s application for al- whole meaningless of an is a lowance jumble defendant of words. Unless the preparing the aid of counsel application, to file one useless; moreover, well be presented the issues so
consideration of
meaningful
as when
cannot be
sented
counsel.
Spurgeon ANDERSON,Appellant,
respon
powers
In exercise
v.
sibility
relation to the administration
UNITED STATES America,
District,
in the courts
give
spirit
we should
effect to
1957,
States,
352
United
U.S.
Johnson v.
United
States Court of
550,
565,
pellant’s claims moot. See States 1954, 502, Morgan, 346 U.S. 74 S.Ct. v. 248;
247, Fiswick v. United L.Ed. States, 329 U.S. S.Ct. 196; People Williams, 1955, L.Ed. 537; Ill.App.2d 124 N.E.2d Com Fleckner, 1896, 167 Mass.
monwealth v.
13,
Municipal Court of presenting assist claim allow should instructions.
Remanded with