UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JOHN CORTEZ WHITE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

5th Cir. | 1971-09-01
No. 71-1687
447 F.2d 493 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1971)

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 a resentencing without a new jury trial is permissible and that it lacks the power to modify a legally imposed sentence.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was convicted of bank robbery and assault, with concurrent sentences. The sentences were vacated and remanded for resentencing. Upon remand,…

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:

Appellant was convicted of (1) robbing a bank in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a), and (2) assaulting and putting in jeopardy the lives of persons by use of a dangerous weapon while committing the bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(d). He was sentenced to twenty years under the (a) count and to twenty-five years under the (d) count, to run concurrently. On and remanded for the District Court to appeal, we vacated the two sentences enter a single sentence. United States v. White, 5 Cir., 1971, 436 F. 2d 1380.

On remand, appellant was resentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment on the conviction under § 2113(d). The sentence on the conviction under § 2113 (a) was vacated. See Eakes v. United States, 5 Cir., 1968, 391 F. 2d 287. The present appeal is from the judgment re-sentencing appellant.

Appellant argues that the district court committed error in failing to require a new jury trial, rather than merely resentencing him as stated. This contention is without merit. In fact, it was specifically rejected in United States v. White, 5 Cir., 1971, 440 F. 2d 978.

Appellant also urges that his sentence was too harsh and that we should modify it. In Zaffarano v. Blackwell, 5 Cir., 1967, 383 F. 2d 719, 721, we said:

“This Court is without power to modify a sentence which was legally imposed and within the bounds prescribed by statute.”

Thus this contention is also without merit.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw