Lynch v. Sanford

Fifth Circuit

Lynch v. Sanford

167 F.2d 740, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2484

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 4, 1948

DocketNo. 12209

StatusPublished

This text of 167 F.2d 740 (Lynch v. Sanford) 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

Lynch v. Sanford, 167 F.2d 740, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2484 (5th Cir. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant is held on a seven year sentence imposed in 1943 for burglarizing a post office and for stealing property of the United States. The sentence did not impose any fine, but was for imprisonment only. The statute touching burglary, 18 U.S.C.A. § 315, provides that the violator shall be fined not more than $1,000 and imprisoned not more than five years. That touching the stealing is 18 U.S.C.A. § 100, and provides a punishment by a fine or five years imprisonment. The sentence to seven years imprisonment is justified for the two offenses. The omission to add a fine for the burglary is in appellant’s favor, and while it is an error it is one that he could not complain of, certainly not by this collateral attack by habeas corpus. The sentence is not void.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant is held on a seven year sentence imposed in 1943 for burglarizing a post office and for stealing property of the United States. The sentence did not impose any fine, but was for imprisonment only. The statute touching burglary, 18 U.S.C.A. § 315, provides that the violator shall be fined not more than $1,000 and imprisoned not more than five years. That touching the stealing is 18 U.S.C.A. § 100, and provides a punishment by a fine or five years imprisonment. The sentence to seven years imprisonment is justified for the two offenses. The omission to add a fine for the burglary is in appellant’s favor, and while it is an error it is one that he could not complain of, certainly not by this collateral attack by habeas corpus. The sentence is not void.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 F.2d 740, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lynch-v-sanford-ca5-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack