JAMES EDWIN ROSE, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT-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 while the sentencing court did not err in failing to advise the appellant about consecutive sentences, it did err in imposing separate sentences for each count of the Federal Bank Robbery Act.
Appellant pleaded guilty to four counts of violating the Federal Bank Robbery Act and received concurrent sentences. He later filed a motion to vacate…
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 Motion To Vacate Judgment And Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
James Edwin Rose has taken this appeal from the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate judgment and sentence filed pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. We affirm in part and vacate and remand in part.
The appellant, having waived counsel, was convicted on his plea of guilty on four counts alleging violations of the Federal Bank Robbery Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a), (b), (c), and (d). He was sentenced on February 9, 1967, to serve concurrent sentences, respectively, of 18, 10, 10, and 18 years. There was no direct appeal.
Appellant contends that the sentencing court committed reversible error in failing to advise him that sentences under the different counts could not be made to run consecutively, citing our decisions in Stephen v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 426 F. 2d 257, and Grant v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 424 F. 2d 273. However, this court, sitting en banc, recently overruled those two cases, and accordingly Rose’s contention cannot be sustained. United States v. Woodall, 5 Cir. 1971, 438 F. 2d 1317. The transcript of the plea and sentencing proceedings shows that in all other respects the sentencing court complied fully with the provisions of Rule 11, F.R.Crim.P. The sentencing court erred, however, in imposing separate, albeit concurrent, sentences on each of the four counts under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113. The law in this Circuit is now clear that separate penalties under the various subsections of the Federal Bank Robbery Act are improper, whether imposed consecutively or concurrently. United States v. White, 5 Cir. 1971, 440 F. 2d 978. Where multiple penalties are imposed, the proper remedy is to vacate the sentences and remand for resentenc-ing on one count. That is what we now do with this case.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sullivan v. United States, 485 F.2d 1352 (5th Cir. 1973)
-
Johnson v. United States, 619 F.2d 366 (5th Cir. 1980)
-
Elwood Calvin Burger v. United States, 454 F.2d 723 (5th Cir. 1972)
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
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Woodall, 438 F.2d 1317 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. White, 440 F.2d 978 (5th Cir. 1971)
- Grant v. United States, 424 F.2d 273 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Stephen v. United States, 426 F.2d 257 (5th Cir. 1970)