Jones v. Hill

Third Circuit

Jones v. Hill

71 F.2d 932, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 3252

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJune 21, 1934

DocketNo. 5258

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 71 F.2d 932 (Jones v. Hill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. Hill, 71 F.2d 932, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 3252 (3d Cir. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In the court below the appellant, Reese B. Jones, on a writ of habeas corpus sought to be discharged from the Federal Penitentiary at Lewisburg in this circuit. That court dismissed the writ; thereupon this appeal was taken.

From the record it appears the petitioner pleaded guilty in an Ohio Federal District Court on three indictments charging him with violations of the national banking laws. He was then sentenced to imprisonment of seven years on each indictment, to run consecutively. The act under which he was sentenced provides for imprisonment for five years for each violation thereof. In its opinion the court held: “The great weight of authority in the federal courts holds that such sentences are not void and that a general or gross sentence may be imposed under an indictment containing more than one count so« long as it does not exceed the aggregate of the punishments which could have been imposed upon the several counts. Ex Parte De Bara, 179 U. S. 316, 21 S. Ct. 110, 45 L. Ed. 207; Hyde v. United States (C. C. A.) 198 F. 610, 613; Myers v. Morgan (C. C. A.) 224 F. 413; Brinkman v. Morgan (C. C. A.) 253 F. 553; Neely v. United States (C.. C. A.) 2 F.(2d) 849; Feigin v. United States (C. C. A.) 3 F.(2d) 866; Rice v. United States (C. C. A.) 7 F.(2d) 319; Adams v. White, Warden (C. C. A.) 31 F.(2d) 982; Flynn v. United States (C. C. A.) 57 F.(2d) 1044.” We have not overlooked the ruling in United States v. Peeke (C. C. A.) 153 F. 166,12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 314, which was based on facts not fully reported.

We are of opinion the court below, on the authorities cited, committed no error, and we affirm the case on its decision.

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

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In the court below the appellant, Reese B. Jones, on a writ of habeas corpus sought to be discharged from the Federal Penitentiary at Lewisburg in this circuit. That court dismissed the writ; thereupon this appeal was taken.

From the record it appears the petitioner pleaded guilty in an Ohio Federal District Court on three indictments charging him with violations of the national banking laws. He was then sentenced to imprisonment of seven years on each indictment, to run consecutively. The act under which he was sentenced provides for imprisonment for five years for each violation thereof. In its opinion the court held: “The great weight of authority in the federal courts holds that such sentences are not void and that a general or gross sentence may be imposed under an indictment containing more than one count so« long as it does not exceed the aggregate of the punishments which could have been imposed upon the several counts. Ex Parte De Bara, 179 U. S. 316, 21 S. Ct. 110, 45 L. Ed. 207; Hyde v. United States (C. C. A.) 198 F. 610, 613; Myers v. Morgan (C. C. A.) 224 F. 413; Brinkman v. Morgan (C. C. A.) 253 F. 553; Neely v. United States (C.. C. A.) 2 F.(2d) 849; Feigin v. United States (C. C. A.) 3 F.(2d) 866; Rice v. United States (C. C. A.) 7 F.(2d) 319; Adams v. White, Warden (C. C. A.) 31 F.(2d) 982; Flynn v. United States (C. C. A.) 57 F.(2d) 1044.” We have not overlooked the ruling in United States v. Peeke (C. C. A.) 153 F. 166,12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 314, which was based on facts not fully reported.

We are of opinion the court below, on the authorities cited, committed no error, and we affirm the case on its decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 F.2d 932, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 3252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-hill-ca3-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack