Miller v. Aderhold

Fifth Circuit

Miller v. Aderhold

56 F.2d 152, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 2737

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 20, 1932

DocketNo. 6470

StatusPublished

This text of 56 F.2d 152 (Miller v. Aderhold) 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

Miller v. Aderhold, 56 F.2d 152, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 2737 (5th Cir. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with stealing mail matter, in violation of section 194 of the Criminal Code (18 USCA § 317). The District Judge who received the plea suspended sentence indefinitely, but some six months later another judge of the same District Court imposed a sentence of four years in the Atlanta penitentiary. This appeal is taken from an order dismissing a writ of habeas corpus previously issued, and remanding appellant to custody.

The order indefinitely and unconditionally suspending the imposition of sentence was void. Ex parte United States, 242 U. S. 27, 37 S. Ct. 72, 61 L. Ed. 129, L. R. A. 1917E, 1178, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 355. A judge of the trial court had authority, notwithstanding the attempted suspension, to impose sentence, and to order that appellant be committed to the penitentiary. United States, ex rel. Campbell v. Bishop (C. C. A.) 47 F.(2d) 95.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with stealing mail matter, in violation of section 194 of the Criminal Code (18 USCA § 317). The District Judge who received the plea suspended sentence indefinitely, but some six months later another judge of the same District Court imposed a sentence of four years in the Atlanta penitentiary. This appeal is taken from an order dismissing a writ of habeas corpus previously issued, and remanding appellant to custody.

The order indefinitely and unconditionally suspending the imposition of sentence was void. Ex parte United States, 242 U. S. 27, 37 S. Ct. 72, 61 L. Ed. 129, L. R. A. 1917E, 1178, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 355. A judge of the trial court had authority, notwithstanding the attempted suspension, to impose sentence, and to order that appellant be committed to the penitentiary. United States, ex rel. Campbell v. Bishop (C. C. A.) 47 F.(2d) 95.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 F.2d 152, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 2737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-aderhold-ca5-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack