JOHN OLIVER BURWELL, 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 reporter's affidavit correcting the transcript to show consecutive sentences was controlling, and federal sentences run from receipt at a federal institution.
Appellant pleaded guilty to federal charges and was sentenced. The original transcript indicated concurrent sentences, but a later affidavit from the …
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 18 U.S.C. § 3568 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for correction, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, of a so-called “illegal sentence.”
Appellant contends that, on September 21, 1962, when he appeared, under Rule 20 F.R.Crim.Proc., for sentencing upon his pleas of guilty to two indictments charging him with violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2314, the District Judge imposed two sentences of five years each to “run with each other” — concurrent sentences. Hence, he contends he was sentenced to a total of 5 years imprisonment.
As originally prepared by the official court reporter the transcript of the sentencing proceedings did indeed read that way.. However, on October 26, 1964, the reporter filed an affidavit with the Court wherein he deposed that the sentencing judge actually had said that the sentences were to run “consecutively with each other” (emphasis added), instead of as transcribed at first, the word “consecutively” having been omitted inadvertently. The reporter’s stenotype notes clearly showed this to be the case; and, of course, this governs. Henley v. Heritage, 5 Cir. 1964, 337 F. 2d 847. The clerk’s minutes and the official judgments of commitment are to the same effect.
At the time he was sentenced appellant was serving a six-year state sentence for burglary, having been “borrowed” by federal authorities to answer to the federal charges. In his sentences rendered herein the District Judge did not specify whether the federal sentences were to run consecutively to or concurrently with the state sentence. Appellant contends, therefore, that the sentences should be construed as running concurrently. This is not the law. The rule is that, in such cases, the federal sentences run only from the date upon which the prisoner is received at a federal correctional institution. 18 U.S.C. § 3568; cf. Harrell v. Shuttlesworth, 5 Cir. 1952, 200 F. 2d 490.
For these reasons we find the judgment of the district court to be correct. It is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Greathouse v. United States, 548 F.2d 225 (8th Cir. 1977)
-
United States v. Buide-Gomez, 744 F.2d 781 (11th Cir. 1984)
-
Blackshear v. United States, 434 F.2d 58 (5th Cir. 1970)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Henley v. Heritage, 337 F.2d 847 (5th Cir. 1964)
- Harrell v. Shuttleworth, 200 F.2d 490 (5th Cir. 1952)