Perkins v. United States

526 F.2d 688, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 13102
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 28, 1976
DocketNo. 75-2982
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 526 F.2d 688 (Perkins 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
Perkins v. United States, 526 F.2d 688, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 13102 (5th Cir. 1976).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from the District Court’s denial of appellant’s § 2255 motion to vacate sentence. A jury convicted appellant, a federal prisoner, under each count of a two-count indictment charging him in one count with bank robbery and assault with a dangerous weapon in connection therewith, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a) and (d)1, and in the second count with carrying a firearm unlawfully during the commission of a felony in violation of 18 U.S. C.A. § 924(c)(2).2 The District Court sentenced appellant to the custody of the Attorney General for 15 years on count one and 3 years on count two, the punishment in count two being consecutive to the sentence assessed in count one. This Court affirmed the conviction. United States v. Perkins, 5 Cir., 1972, 459 F.2d 1392, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1062, 93 S.Ct. 569, 34 L.Ed.2d 515.

In his § 2255 Motion, appellant contended that the indictment was duplicitous when it charged him in one count with committing an assault with a dangerous weapon — which in this case was a firearm — during commission of a bank robbery and in the second count with carrying a firearm unlawfully during the commission of a felony. He further as[690]*690serted that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because counsel permitted him to be tried on the duplicitous indictment and was not adequately prepared. The District Court denied appellant’s motion on July 8, 1975.

In order for separate offenses to be carved out of a single incident, each of the offenses created must require proof of at least one different element. Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); Hornbeck v. United States, 5 Cir., 1974, 503 F.2d 1029. The elements of the two separate offenses charged in this case meet that test. To convict for a violation of § 924(c)(2), the Government must prove, in addition to the elements 3 necessary to prove a violation of § 2113(a) and (d), that appellant carried a firearm, not just a dangerous weapon, and that he carried it unlawfully. The elements of “firearm” and “unlawfully” are unique to the § 924(c)(2) count. Unlawfulness is not an element of § 2113(d), and § 2113(d)’s element of a dangerous weapon may consist of various instruments, only one of which is a firearm. The fact that a firearm happened to be the dangerous weapon in this particular case does not alter the fact that “firearm” and “dangerous weapon” are not coterminous elements.

Appellant was sentenced under § 924(c)(2) for the separate offense of carrying a firearm unlawfully during the commission of a felony, and his sentence was not just an enhancement on the sentence given for the conviction under § 2113(a) and (d). United States v. Sudduth, 10 Cir., 1972, 457 F.2d 1198. See also United States v. Beck, 6 Cir., 1975, 511 F.2d 997. The two offenses charged were not duplicitous.

We agree with the District Court that appellant’s contention that at his trial he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, who was court-appointed, is completely without merit.

Affirmed.

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

Related

McClain v. United States
478 F. Supp. 732 (S.D. New York, 1979)
United States v. Grant
476 F. Supp. 400 (S.D. Florida, 1979)
United States v. Craig Leslie Gardner
579 F.2d 474 (Eighth Circuit, 1978)
Simpson v. United States
435 U.S. 6 (Supreme Court, 1978)
United States v. Victor Cumberbatch
563 F.2d 49 (Second Circuit, 1977)
United States v. Virgil B. Chrane
529 F.2d 1236 (Fifth Circuit, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
526 F.2d 688, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 13102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perkins-v-united-states-ca5-1976.