JASPER SMALLWOOD, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE

10th Cir. | 1962-09-10
No. 7013
308 F.2d 802 United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (1962) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the appellant suffered no injury from an illegal sentence because it ran concurrently with a lawful sentence.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was convicted of assaulting a postal clerk with intent to rob and robbery, and sentenced concurrently. The sentences were later merged into …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court, District of Kansas, denying appellant’s motion to vacate and set aside sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Appellant was convicted by a jury on two counts of an information charging the assault of a postal clerk with intent to rob, and robbery by putting such clerk’s life in danger — all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2114. Concurrent sentences of ten (10) and twenty-five (25) years were imposed. Shortly thereafter, on motion by appellant, the trial court ruled the offenses merged and corrected the sentence by imposing a single sentence of twenty-five (25) years.

Appellant’s present motion asserts the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction and the invalidity of the sentence. Both points are governed by Martin v. United States (10 C.A.), 241 F. 2d 698, where the same issues were presented under essentially the same operative facts. There we held that “(S)ince the illegal sentence * * * under count one was made to run concurrently with the lawful sentence of twenty-five years under count two, he [appellant] has suffered no injury because he is in lawful custody under the twenty-five year sentence.” Indeed, appellant would be entitled to no relief even if the trial court had initially failed to change the sentence to prescribe a single twenty-five year period.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw