Eddie Odom v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Eddie Odom v. United States

403 F.2d 45

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 21, 1968

Docket25499_1

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 403 F.2d 45 (Eddie Odom 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

Eddie Odom v. United States, 403 F.2d 45 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is the second appeal for the appellant convicted for the violation of the *46 Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2313. On the first appeal this Court reversed Odom v. United States (5th Cir. 1967) 377 F.2d 853.

In this forma pauperis appeal, appellant primarily contends that the officer making the arrest had adequate time to obtain a warrant and since the arrest was made without warrant the arrest and subsequent search was illegal. We hold all points raised as to this contention to be without merit. The absence of an arrest warrant, even though there may be sufficient time to obtain one, does not invalidate an otherwise valid arrest. United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 70 S.Ct. 430, 94 L.Ed. 653; Abramson v. United States (5th Cir. 1964) 326 F.2d 565; and Dailey v. United States (5th Cir. 1958) 261 F.2d 870.

We find no error committed by increasing the sentence of the appellant to three years as compared to the original two year sentence given by the first trial judge. The record clearly discloses that the sentencing judge was in possession of additional information concerning the appellant which information was considered in measuring the increased sentence. Marano v. United States, 1 Cir., 1967, 374 F.2d 583; United States ex rel. Starner v. Russell, 3 Cir., 1967, 378 F.2d 808, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 889, 88 S.Ct. 166, 19 L.Ed.2d 189; United States v. White, 7 Cir., 1967, 382 F.2d 445, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1052, 88 S.Ct. 796, 19 L.Ed.2d 846.

We are not unmindful of the Fourth Circuit opinion, 1 which discusses the constitutionality of an increase in a subsequent sentence, but under the facts of our case we do not believe the constitutional question is raised by the increased sentence.

There are numerous cases holding that a sentence within the limits of the statute is within the discretion of the trial court and not subject to change by the Appellate Court. This Court has so held in recent cases. See Castle v. United States, 5 Cir., 1968, 399 F.2d 642; Henderson v. Dutton, 5 Cir., 397 F.2d 375; Lacaze v. United States, 5 Cir., 1968, 391 F.2d 516; Sibley v. United States, 5 Cir., 1965, 344 F.2d 103.

Affirmed.

1

. Patton v. State of North Carolina, 4 Cir., 1967, 381 F.2d 636, cert. denied, 1968, 390 U.S. 905, 88 S.Ct. 818, 19 L.Ed.2d 871.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is the second appeal for the appellant convicted for the violation of the *46 Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2313. On the first appeal this Court reversed Odom v. United States (5th Cir. 1967) 377 F.2d 853.

In this forma pauperis appeal, appellant primarily contends that the officer making the arrest had adequate time to obtain a warrant and since the arrest was made without warrant the arrest and subsequent search was illegal. We hold all points raised as to this contention to be without merit. The absence of an arrest warrant, even though there may be sufficient time to obtain one, does not invalidate an otherwise valid arrest. United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 70 S.Ct. 430, 94 L.Ed. 653; Abramson v. United States (5th Cir. 1964) 326 F.2d 565; and Dailey v. United States (5th Cir. 1958) 261 F.2d 870.

We find no error committed by increasing the sentence of the appellant to three years as compared to the original two year sentence given by the first trial judge. The record clearly discloses that the sentencing judge was in possession of additional information concerning the appellant which information was considered in measuring the increased sentence. Marano v. United States, 1 Cir., 1967, 374 F.2d 583; United States ex rel. Starner v. Russell, 3 Cir., 1967, 378 F.2d 808, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 889, 88 S.Ct. 166, 19 L.Ed.2d 189; United States v. White, 7 Cir., 1967, 382 F.2d 445, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1052, 88 S.Ct. 796, 19 L.Ed.2d 846.

We are not unmindful of the Fourth Circuit opinion, 1 which discusses the constitutionality of an increase in a subsequent sentence, but under the facts of our case we do not believe the constitutional question is raised by the increased sentence.

There are numerous cases holding that a sentence within the limits of the statute is within the discretion of the trial court and not subject to change by the Appellate Court. This Court has so held in recent cases. See Castle v. United States, 5 Cir., 1968, 399 F.2d 642; Henderson v. Dutton, 5 Cir., 397 F.2d 375; Lacaze v. United States, 5 Cir., 1968, 391 F.2d 516; Sibley v. United States, 5 Cir., 1965, 344 F.2d 103.

Affirmed.

1

. Patton v. State of North Carolina, 4 Cir., 1967, 381 F.2d 636, cert. denied, 1968, 390 U.S. 905, 88 S.Ct. 818, 19 L.Ed.2d 871.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

403 F.2d 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eddie-odom-v-united-states-ca5-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack