Adams v. White

Eighth Circuit

Adams v. White

31 F.2d 982, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3618

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 29, 1929

DocketNo. 8342

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 31 F.2d 982 (Adams v. White) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. White, 31 F.2d 982, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3618 (8th Cir. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

WOODROUGH, District Judge.

The petitioner for habeas corpus was convicted of burglarizing a post office and stealing postal funds therefrom as charged against him in two counts of an indictment. One of the counts for burglarizing was laid under section 192 of the Penal Code (18 USCA § 315), which carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment, and the other under section 190 of the Penal Code (18 USCA § 313), where the maximum imprisonment is three years. Without referring particularly to the counts, the court sentenced the petitioner to serve eight years’ imprisonment and petitioner is now and has been since February 11, 1924, confined pursuant to the sentence. His claim is that the part of his sentence which is in excess of the maximum five years that could have been imposed under the burglarizing count is void.

The contention is without merit. It is well settled that, although committed at the same time, the two offenses were distinct, and both penalties were applicable. Morgan v. Devine, 237 U. S. 632, 35 S. Ct. 712, 59 L. Ed. 1153. The single sentence, which did not exceed the maximum penalties that could be imposed, is valid. Myers v. Morgan (C. C. A.) 224 P. 413; Donegan v. Snook (D. C.) 6 F.(2d) 640; Howard v. Moyer (D. C.) 206 F. 555; Blake v. Moyer (C. C. A.) 208 F. 678.

The ease of U. S. v. Daugherty, 269 U. S. 360, 46 S. Ct. 156, 70 L. Ed. 309, relied upon by petitioner, turned merely upon the interpretation of a sentence claimed to be ambiguous, and has no application.

The judgment of the-trial court, denying the writ of habeas corpus, should be affirmed; and it is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WOODROUGH, District Judge.

The petitioner for habeas corpus was convicted of burglarizing a post office and stealing postal funds therefrom as charged against him in two counts of an indictment. One of the counts for burglarizing was laid under section 192 of the Penal Code (18 USCA § 315), which carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment, and the other under section 190 of the Penal Code (18 USCA § 313), where the maximum imprisonment is three years. Without referring particularly to the counts, the court sentenced the petitioner to serve eight years’ imprisonment and petitioner is now and has been since February 11, 1924, confined pursuant to the sentence. His claim is that the part of his sentence which is in excess of the maximum five years that could have been imposed under the burglarizing count is void.

The contention is without merit. It is well settled that, although committed at the same time, the two offenses were distinct, and both penalties were applicable. Morgan v. Devine, 237 U. S. 632, 35 S. Ct. 712, 59 L. Ed. 1153. The single sentence, which did not exceed the maximum penalties that could be imposed, is valid. Myers v. Morgan (C. C. A.) 224 P. 413; Donegan v. Snook (D. C.) 6 F.(2d) 640; Howard v. Moyer (D. C.) 206 F. 555; Blake v. Moyer (C. C. A.) 208 F. 678.

The ease of U. S. v. Daugherty, 269 U. S. 360, 46 S. Ct. 156, 70 L. Ed. 309, relied upon by petitioner, turned merely upon the interpretation of a sentence claimed to be ambiguous, and has no application.

The judgment of the-trial court, denying the writ of habeas corpus, should be affirmed; and it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 F.2d 982, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-white-ca8-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack