Charles Edward Eakes v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Charles Edward Eakes v. United States

391 F.2d 287, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7848

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 5, 1968

Docket25186_1

StatusPublished

Cited by34 cases

This text of 391 F.2d 287 (Charles Edward Eakes v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Charles Edward Eakes v. United States, 391 F.2d 287, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7848 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Charles Edward Eakes appeals from a denial of his motion to vacate his sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

The appellant, represented by court-appointed counsel, was convicted upon his plea of guilty on two counts of an indictment for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d); and a third count under § 2113(b) was dismissed. He was sentenced on April 3, 1967, to serve two concurrent sentences of twenty years. There was no direct appeal.

There is no merit to the contention of the appellant that the judgment should be vacated because the district court misled him as to the sentence which could be imposed, so that his plea of guilty was not made with full understanding of its consequences. Appellant received a lesser sentence than either that which the district court informed appellant it could impose or the maximum sentence provided by law.

The maximum term of imprisonment, however, which can be imposed for violation of § 2113, subsections (a), (b) and (d), where there has been but one bank robbery, is twenty-five years. These subsections do not create separate offenses; rather, they create different maximum punishments for a single offense depending on whether aggravating circumstances exist. Heflin v. United States, 5 Cir., 1955, 223 F.2d 371; United States v. Williamson, 5 Cir., 1958, 255 F.2d 512, cert. denied, 358 U.S. 941, 79 S.Ct. 348, 3 L.Ed.2d 349, reversed on another ground, 265 F.2d 236; United States v. Gardner, 7 Cir., 1965, 347 F.2d 405, cert. denied, 382 U.S. 1015, 86 S.Ct. 626, 15 L.Ed.2d 529; [Heflin v. United States, 358 U.S. 415, 79 S.Ct. 451, 3 L.Ed.2d 407 (1959), held that consecutive sentences cannot be imposed for violations of subsections (c) and (d) of § 2113.] One of the concurrent sentences imposed in this cause must, therefore, be vacated, and, for this purpose the cause is reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM:

Charles Edward Eakes appeals from a denial of his motion to vacate his sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

The appellant, represented by court-appointed counsel, was convicted upon his plea of guilty on two counts of an indictment for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d); and a third count under § 2113(b) was dismissed. He was sentenced on April 3, 1967, to serve two concurrent sentences of twenty years. There was no direct appeal.

There is no merit to the contention of the appellant that the judgment should be vacated because the district court misled him as to the sentence which could be imposed, so that his plea of guilty was not made with full understanding of its consequences. Appellant received a lesser sentence than either that which the district court informed appellant it could impose or the maximum sentence provided by law.

The maximum term of imprisonment, however, which can be imposed for violation of § 2113, subsections (a), (b) and (d), where there has been but one bank robbery, is twenty-five years. These subsections do not create separate offenses; rather, they create different maximum punishments for a single offense depending on whether aggravating circumstances exist. Heflin v. United States, 5 Cir., 1955, 223 F.2d 371; United States v. Williamson, 5 Cir., 1958, 255 F.2d 512, cert. denied, 358 U.S. 941, 79 S.Ct. 348, 3 L.Ed.2d 349, reversed on another ground, 265 F.2d 236; United States v. Gardner, 7 Cir., 1965, 347 F.2d 405, cert. denied, 382 U.S. 1015, 86 S.Ct. 626, 15 L.Ed.2d 529; [Heflin v. United States, 358 U.S. 415, 79 S.Ct. 451, 3 L.Ed.2d 407 (1959), held that consecutive sentences cannot be imposed for violations of subsections (c) and (d) of § 2113.] One of the concurrent sentences imposed in this cause must, therefore, be vacated, and, for this purpose the cause is reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

391 F.2d 287, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-edward-eakes-v-united-states-ca5-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack