Pringle v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Pringle v. United States

128 F.2d 736, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 3680

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 29, 1942

DocketNo. 10154

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 128 F.2d 736 (Pringle 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

Pringle v. United States, 128 F.2d 736, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 3680 (5th Cir. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

SIBLEY, Circuit Judge.

Following a practice sustained by Holiday v. Johnston, 313 U.S. 342, 550, 61 S.Ct. 1015, 85 L.Ed. 1392, Meyers v. United States, 5 Cir., 116 F.2d 601, and Miller v. United States, 5 Cir., 128 F.2d 519, R. L. Pringle, a prisoner at Alcatraz Penitentiary, petitioned the court that sentenced him to correct the sentence for illegality appearing on its face. His petition was heard and overruled, and he appeals.

He was convicted in 1935 on six counts. Two counts based on 18 U.S.C.A. § 320 were for robbing two mail carriers of stated mail matter. On these he was given a term of ten years, conceded to be legal. On the four other counts he was given a term of five years to begin at the end of the other term. This he contends was a second sentencing for the same offense, except as to the sixth count for conspiracy, on which he concedes there could be a separate sentence, but only for two years. The contested question is whether the offenses charged in the remaining counts are included in those for robbery. One of the contested counts charges that he and the same mail carrier alleged in another count to have been robbed of it, embezzled the same mail matter. Both counts can not be true, and the second term ought not to rest on this count. So the two counts alleging a taking of the same mail matter from the same carriers alleged in the other counts to have been robbed of it ought not to support a second sentence, because robbery involves á taking. But the remaining count alleges that the defendant knowingly and fraudulently received, concealed and retained in his possession the mail matter, with intent to convert it to his [737]*737own use, it being property of the United States, contrary to 18 U.S.C.A. § 101. We think this is .a different offense from the robbery, and could have occurred after-wards, and is not necessarily included in the robbery and punished in punishing it. This count is sufficient, with that for conspiracy, to sustain the additional term of five years.

Judgment affirmed.

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

SIBLEY, Circuit Judge.

Following a practice sustained by Holiday v. Johnston, 313 U.S. 342, 550, 61 S.Ct. 1015, 85 L.Ed. 1392, Meyers v. United States, 5 Cir., 116 F.2d 601, and Miller v. United States, 5 Cir., 128 F.2d 519, R. L. Pringle, a prisoner at Alcatraz Penitentiary, petitioned the court that sentenced him to correct the sentence for illegality appearing on its face. His petition was heard and overruled, and he appeals.

He was convicted in 1935 on six counts. Two counts based on 18 U.S.C.A. § 320 were for robbing two mail carriers of stated mail matter. On these he was given a term of ten years, conceded to be legal. On the four other counts he was given a term of five years to begin at the end of the other term. This he contends was a second sentencing for the same offense, except as to the sixth count for conspiracy, on which he concedes there could be a separate sentence, but only for two years. The contested question is whether the offenses charged in the remaining counts are included in those for robbery. One of the contested counts charges that he and the same mail carrier alleged in another count to have been robbed of it, embezzled the same mail matter. Both counts can not be true, and the second term ought not to rest on this count. So the two counts alleging a taking of the same mail matter from the same carriers alleged in the other counts to have been robbed of it ought not to support a second sentence, because robbery involves á taking. But the remaining count alleges that the defendant knowingly and fraudulently received, concealed and retained in his possession the mail matter, with intent to convert it to his [737]*737own use, it being property of the United States, contrary to 18 U.S.C.A. § 101. We think this is .a different offense from the robbery, and could have occurred after-wards, and is not necessarily included in the robbery and punished in punishing it. This count is sufficient, with that for conspiracy, to sustain the additional term of five years.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 F.2d 736, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 3680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pringle-v-united-states-ca5-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack