UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
CARROL EDWARD SANDERS AND SALLY LEE CLASEN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
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 affirmed the convictions based on the concurrent sentence doctrine, as the appellants did not challenge their convictions under the transportation count.
Appellants were convicted of transporting and concealing a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce. They appealed only their convictions for conce…
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 Concurrent Sentence Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Both of the appellants were convicted for Dyer Act violations under both counts of a two count indictment charging them in Count One with transporting a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce,1 and in Count Two with concealing the same stolen motor vehicle.2 Appellants were sentenced to concurrent three-year terms on each count. Their sole contentions on this appeal challenge only their convictions under Count Two.3 Appellants do not challenge their convictions under Count One.
It is well settled that the transportation offense codified in Section 2312 is a separate and distinct offense from the concealment transgression codified in Section 2313, even though the same vehicle is involved in both crimes. Woody v. United States, 258 F. 2d 535 (6th Cir. 1957), aff’d, 359 U.S. 118, 79 S.Ct. 721, 3 L.Ed.2d 673 (1959) (by equally divided court); United States v. Marvel, 493 F. 2d 15, 16 (5th Cir.), rehearing denied, 496 F. 2d 1170 (1974); United States v. Ploof, 464 F. 2d 116, 119-20 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 952, 93 S.Ct. 298, 34 L.Ed.2d 224 (1972) (several cases cited); United States v. Thompson, 422 F. 2d 1104, 1109-10 (6th Cir. 1970), aff’d after remand, 442 F. 2d 1333 (6th Cir. 1971); see United States v. Rice, 428 F. 2d 923,925-26 (5th Cir. 1970). Accordingly, since appellants were sentenced concurrently under Count II (the concealment count), and do not challenge their convictions under Count I (the transportation count), pursuant to the concurrent sentence doctrine we need not and do not reach the merits of their attack on Count II. Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837, 848 & n. 16, 93 S.Ct. 2357, 37 L.Ed.2d 380 (1973); Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81,105, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774 (1943); United States v. Works, 526 F. 2d 940, 948 (5th Cir. 1976).
AFFIRMED.
. In violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 & 2312.
. In violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 & 2313.
. They assert that the trial court gave an erroneous jury instruction and that the evidence is insufficient to support their convictions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Binetti, 547 F.2d 265 (5th Cir. 1977)
-
United States v. Spudic, 795 F.2d 1334 (7th Cir. 1986)
Authorities Cited (15 total)
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (U.S. 1943)
- Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1973)
- United States v. Ploof, 464 F.2d 116 (2d Cir. 1972)
- Woody v. United States, 359 U.S. 118 (U.S. 1959)
- Johnson v. United States, 409 U.S. 952 (U.S. 1972)
- Woody v. United States, 258 F.2d 535 (6th Cir. 1957)
- Spevack v. Strauss, 359 U.S. 115 (U.S. 1959)
- Pierce v. Georgia, 409 U.S. 952 (U.S. 1972)
- United States v. Works, 526 F.2d 940 (5th Cir. 1976)