Jack Wright Twining v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Jack Wright Twining v. United States

276 F.2d 925, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4912

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 8, 1960

Docket18065_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 276 F.2d 925 (Jack Wright Twining 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

Jack Wright Twining v. United States, 276 F.2d 925, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4912 (5th Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a proceeding under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. to correct a sentence for a conviction based on pleas of guilty to two counts charging violation of the Federal Bank Robbery Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a) & (d). Sentence on Count One, § 2113 (a), of ten years was directed to run consecutively to the sentence of twenty years imposed on Count Two, § 2113(d), making a total of thirty years. The sentencing judge on his own motion vacated the sentence of ten years on Count One leaving the twenty-year sentence on Count Two to make the sentence comport with Prince v. United States, 1957, 352 U.S. 322, 77 S.Ct. 403, 1 L.Ed.2d 370.

On a theory that the greater comprehends the lesser, appellant contends that each count charged the same crime, § 2113(a) & (d), and that when the Court received a plea of guilty on Count One, the simultaneous reception of a plea of guilty on Count Two amounted to double jeopardy. Consequently there was never any valid conviction on Count Two. Presumably since the sentencing judge has vacated sentence on Count One, appellant contends that there is no longer any valid sentence whatsoever. In any event, appellant asserts that the sentence on Count Two, rather than on Count One, should have been vacated. This is untenable.

As revised by the District Court, there is no pyramiding of sentences and the term to be served is within the maximum permitted under either § 2113(a) or (d).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a proceeding under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. to correct a sentence for a conviction based on pleas of guilty to two counts charging violation of the Federal Bank Robbery Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a) & (d). Sentence on Count One, § 2113 (a), of ten years was directed to run consecutively to the sentence of twenty years imposed on Count Two, § 2113(d), making a total of thirty years. The sentencing judge on his own motion vacated the sentence of ten years on Count One leaving the twenty-year sentence on Count Two to make the sentence comport with Prince v. United States, 1957, 352 U.S. 322, 77 S.Ct. 403, 1 L.Ed.2d 370.

On a theory that the greater comprehends the lesser, appellant contends that each count charged the same crime, § 2113(a) & (d), and that when the Court received a plea of guilty on Count One, the simultaneous reception of a plea of guilty on Count Two amounted to double jeopardy. Consequently there was never any valid conviction on Count Two. Presumably since the sentencing judge has vacated sentence on Count One, appellant contends that there is no longer any valid sentence whatsoever. In any event, appellant asserts that the sentence on Count Two, rather than on Count One, should have been vacated. This is untenable.

As revised by the District Court, there is no pyramiding of sentences and the term to be served is within the maximum permitted under either § 2113(a) or (d).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 F.2d 925, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jack-wright-twining-v-united-states-ca5-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack