Hayden v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Hayden v. United States

204 F.2d 926, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2541

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMay 1, 1953

Docket11758

StatusPublished

This text of 204 F.2d 926 (Hayden v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hayden v. United States, 204 F.2d 926, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2541 (6th Cir. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant in this case was convicted on both counts of a two-count indictment charging violation of section 2314, Title 18, U.S.C.A., and was sentenced to five years imprisonment on each count, the sentences “to run concurrently”.

The record brought up by appellant for consideration on appeal contains no evidence relating to the substantive offense charged in the second count of the indictment. A court of review assumes that the evidence sustains the verdict where no transcript of the testimony is included in the record on appeal. Manning v. United States, 8 Cir., 31 F.2d 911; Cholacoff v. United States, 6 Cir., 10 F.2d 503; Thomas v. United States, 8 Cir., 188 F.2d 6; United States v. Bent, 8 Cir., 175 F.2d 397; Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427, 52 S.Ct. 417, 76 L.Ed. 524.

Inasmuch as the appellant was sentenced to five years imprisonment on each count of the indictment, the sentences to run concurrently, even if there were manifest error as to his conviction on the first count, which we do not mean to indicate, he would suffer no prejudice from the five-year sentence on the second count for the reason that the assumption is that there was substantial evidence to support his conviction on that count, and no error relating thereto appears in the record.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the judgment of conviction and sentence on the second count be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant in this case was convicted on both counts of a two-count indictment charging violation of section 2314, Title 18, U.S.C.A., and was sentenced to five years imprisonment on each count, the sentences “to run concurrently”.

The record brought up by appellant for consideration on appeal contains no evidence relating to the substantive offense charged in the second count of the indictment. A court of review assumes that the evidence sustains the verdict where no transcript of the testimony is included in the record on appeal. Manning v. United States, 8 Cir., 31 F.2d 911; Cholacoff v. United States, 6 Cir., 10 F.2d 503; Thomas v. United States, 8 Cir., 188 F.2d 6; United States v. Bent, 8 Cir., 175 F.2d 397; Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427, 52 S.Ct. 417, 76 L.Ed. 524.

Inasmuch as the appellant was sentenced to five years imprisonment on each count of the indictment, the sentences to run concurrently, even if there were manifest error as to his conviction on the first count, which we do not mean to indicate, he would suffer no prejudice from the five-year sentence on the second count for the reason that the assumption is that there was substantial evidence to support his conviction on that count, and no error relating thereto appears in the record.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the judgment of conviction and sentence on the second count be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 F.2d 926, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayden-v-united-states-ca6-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack