Darwin J. Urry v. United States

Tenth Circuit

Darwin J. Urry v. United States

316 F.2d 185, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5602

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedApril 12, 1963

Docket7272

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 316 F.2d 185 (Darwin J. Urry v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Darwin J. Urry v. United States, 316 F.2d 185, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5602 (10th Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was charged with the interstate transportation of a stolen automobile in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 2312. A guilty plea was entered and he was sentenced. More than sixty days after sentencing, appellant filed a motion for modification of sentence. The trial court denied appellant’s motion on the ground that it was untimely.

Appellant urges that authority to modify the sentence following the expiration of sixty days is found in Rule 45(c) and in United States v. Murray, 275 U.S. 347, 48 S.Ct. 146, 72 L.Ed. 309, and that such authorities prevail over Rule 35 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 45(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure only provides that the expiration of a term of court does not affect the period of time for the doing of an act, and the case above cited does not relate to the question at hand. Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for the sixty-day period from the time sentence is imposed during which it may be modified. This time may not be enlarged. Rule 45(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259; United States ex rel. Quinn v. Hunter, 162 F.2d 644 (7th Cir.); United States v. Chicago Professional Schools, Inc., 302 F.2d 549 (7th Cir.).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was charged with the interstate transportation of a stolen automobile in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 2312. A guilty plea was entered and he was sentenced. More than sixty days after sentencing, appellant filed a motion for modification of sentence. The trial court denied appellant’s motion on the ground that it was untimely.

Appellant urges that authority to modify the sentence following the expiration of sixty days is found in Rule 45(c) and in United States v. Murray, 275 U.S. 347, 48 S.Ct. 146, 72 L.Ed. 309, and that such authorities prevail over Rule 35 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 45(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure only provides that the expiration of a term of court does not affect the period of time for the doing of an act, and the case above cited does not relate to the question at hand. Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for the sixty-day period from the time sentence is imposed during which it may be modified. This time may not be enlarged. Rule 45(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259; United States ex rel. Quinn v. Hunter, 162 F.2d 644 (7th Cir.); United States v. Chicago Professional Schools, Inc., 302 F.2d 549 (7th Cir.).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

316 F.2d 185, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darwin-j-urry-v-united-states-ca10-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack