Orville E. Harris v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Orville E. Harris v. United States

348 F.2d 912, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4831

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 21, 1965

Docket21925_1

StatusPublished

This text of 348 F.2d 912 (Orville E. Harris 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

Orville E. Harris v. United States, 348 F.2d 912, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4831 (5th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On August 23, 1963, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312 and was sentenced to five years, subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C.A. § 4208(b). On December 13, 1963, after receiving the report of the penitentiary medical staff, the district court affirmed the sentence originally imposed, but subjecting it to 18 U.S.C.A. § 4208(a) (2). Neither Appellant nor his counsel were present at the time this sentence was imposed. After Appellant alleged that the sentencing without his presence or that of his counsel violated his constitutional rights as stated in United States v. Behrens, 375 U.S. 162, 84 S.Ct. 295, 11 L.Ed.2d 224 (1963) the district court, on April 3, 1964, imposed final sentence in open court with the Appellant and his court-appointed counsel present. This sentence of 49 months allowed Appellant credit for the time spent in prison and the time spent in jail before he entered his plea of guilty. Appellant alleges that the procedure followed denied him due process of law and seeks relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.

The district court having corrected Appellant’s sentence pursuant to Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, so that its imposition meets the requirements of United States v. Behrens, supra, denial of relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 is clearly correct.

The judgment of the district court must be, and is hereby affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

On August 23, 1963, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312 and was sentenced to five years, subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C.A. § 4208(b). On December 13, 1963, after receiving the report of the penitentiary medical staff, the district court affirmed the sentence originally imposed, but subjecting it to 18 U.S.C.A. § 4208(a) (2). Neither Appellant nor his counsel were present at the time this sentence was imposed. After Appellant alleged that the sentencing without his presence or that of his counsel violated his constitutional rights as stated in United States v. Behrens, 375 U.S. 162, 84 S.Ct. 295, 11 L.Ed.2d 224 (1963) the district court, on April 3, 1964, imposed final sentence in open court with the Appellant and his court-appointed counsel present. This sentence of 49 months allowed Appellant credit for the time spent in prison and the time spent in jail before he entered his plea of guilty. Appellant alleges that the procedure followed denied him due process of law and seeks relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.

The district court having corrected Appellant’s sentence pursuant to Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, so that its imposition meets the requirements of United States v. Behrens, supra, denial of relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 is clearly correct.

The judgment of the district court must be, and is hereby affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

348 F.2d 912, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orville-e-harris-v-united-states-ca5-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack