HASKEL EDWARD JOHNSON, 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 consecutive sentences for separate Mann Act violations were proper, as each count charged a distinct offense.
Petitioner was convicted of five counts of violating the Mann Act and received consecutive sentences. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. He…
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 Distinct Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by petitioner Haskel Edward Johnson from final order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion.
Johnson was tried to a jury and convicted upon each of five counts of an indictment charging him with violations of the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2421. He was sentenced to five-years imprisonment and a $1000 fine on each of Counts III, IV and V, said sentences to run consecutively, and he was given five-year concurrent sentences on Counts I and II. His conviction was affirmed upon direct appeal. Johnson v. United States, 8 Cir., 356 F. 2d 680.
Johnson in his brief concedes that he was properly tried on the five separate counts and that he could legally be found guilty upon each count. He urges that each count involves the same charge and that all offenses charged were part of a single operation or scheme and that hence prejudicial error was committed in imposing consecutive sentences. As shown by our opinion affirming the conviction, the violations charged in each count occurred on different dates, involved different interstate transportation, and while the same victim was involved in three counts, separate victims were transported in the other two counts.
We are satisfied that each count charged a separate and distinct offense and that a sentence upon each count was proper and that the court did not abuse its discretion or commit error in imposing the consecutive sentences. See Cross v. United States, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 380, 354 F. 2d 512, 514.
The judgment of dismissal is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Haskell Edward Johnson v. United States, 356 F.2d 680 (8th Cir. 1966)
- Cross v. United States, 354 F.2d 512 (D.C. Cir. 1965)