ROBERT CLEO PATTERSON, III, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that the appellant's claims of duplicitous charges and a leased vehicle were without merit, and any error was harmless due to a guilty plea and concurrent sentences.
Appellant was convicted on two counts: transporting a stolen automobile in interstate commerce and transporting a forged check in interstate commerce.…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Forged Securities cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted on a two-count information, the first charging a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312 in that defendant transported in interstate commerce a stolen automobile knowing the vehicle to have been stolen, and the second charging a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2314 in that the defendant did unlawfully and knowingly and with fraudulent intent cause to be transported in interstate commerce a forged security, to-wit, a $50.00 check, knowing the security to have been forged. The defendant pleaded guilty to each charge and was sentenced to a period of five (5) years in the custody of the Attorney General.
On this Section 2255 (of Title 28 United States Code) motion, the appellant claims that the two charges have nothing to do with each other and are thus duplicitous and prejudicial. We think the two counts charged violations of “the same or similar character.” Rule 8(a), Fed.R.Crim.P. Edwards v. Squier, 9 Cir. 1949, 178 F. 2d 758. Further, any impropriety in the two counts would be harmless because of defendant’s plea of guilty and the concurrence of the sentences.
In his pro se brief, appellant further contends that the automobile which he transported was not stolen when he transported it, but was leased. There is no merit in this contention. See Miller v. United States, 4 Cir. 1958, 261 F. 2d 546; Brown v. United States, 8 Cir. 1960, 277 F. 2d 201.
The judgment is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baker v. United States, 401 F.2d 958 (D.C. Cir. 1968)
-
Smith v. United States, 357 F.2d 486 (5th Cir. 1966)
-
United States v. Dillinger, 341 F.2d 696 (4th Cir. 1965)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miller v. United States, 261 F.2d 546 (4th Cir. 1958)
- Brown v. United States, 277 F.2d 201 (8th Cir. 1960)
- Clay v. Callaway, 178 F.2d 758 (5th Cir. 1949)