Bond v. United States
This text of 425 F. Supp. 953 (Bond v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The plaintiff-prisoner Mr. John Leonard Bond, under sentence of this Court in United States of America, plaintiff, v. John Leonard Bond, Et Al., defendants, criminal action no. 7109, this district and division, claims the right to be released upon the ground that such sentence is subject to collateral attack, 28 U.S.C. § 2255,1 in that he was charged in the indictment therein in one count with two substantive offenses, viz., a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)2 and a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d).3 The files and records therein show conclusively that such prisoner is entitled to no relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2255, supra.
Same do not reflect that there has been such a denial or infringement of such prisoner’s constitutional rights as to render the judgment of this Court vulnerable to collateral attack. Such an attack can be brought only upon a sentence based upon an indictment which is so grossly defective as to be in violation of the Constitution. United States v. Dickerson, C.A. 6th (1964), 337 F.2d 343, 345[2]; Castano v. United States, C.A. 7th (1963), 313 F.2d 857, 858 [2], certiorari denied (1963), 374 U.S. 843, 83 S.Ct. 1899, 10 L.Ed.2d 1063; Roth v. United States, C.A. 8th (1961), 295 F.2d 364, 365-[955]*955366[1], certiorari denied (1962), 368 U.S. 1004, 82 S.Ct. 639, 7 L.Ed.2d 543. The indictment against Mr. Bond was not so grossly defective; in fact, it was not defective at all. Although divided into subsections, 18 U.S.C. § 2113 “ * * * creates but a single offense with increased punishment when committed in an aggravated form. Holiday v. Johns[t]on [1941], 313 U.S. 342, 61 S.Ct. 1015, 85 L.Ed. 1390. * * *” Nolen v. United States, C.A. 6th (1951), 190 F.2d 418, 420[2],
For such reason the movant hereby is DENIED all relief. Rule 58(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Should he give timely notice of an appeal from the judgment to be entered herein, he is authorized to proceed on such appeal in forma pauper-is. Rule 24(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
425 F. Supp. 953, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bond-v-united-states-tned-1976.