Pult v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Pult v. United States

209 F.2d 346, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3171

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedDecember 18, 1953

Docket11950

StatusPublished

This text of 209 F.2d 346 (Pult v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pult v. United States, 209 F.2d 346, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3171 (6th Cir. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted and sentenced by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee to five years imprisonment for violation of federal law and was placed on probation for a period of three years. He was held by the United States Marshal, however, until taken to the State of Iowa where he served a prison term for violation of the law of that State.

Upon release from the Iowa prison, he came to Tennessee where he committed a crime against the laws of that State, for which he was convicted and sentenced on May 19, 1950. On June 2, 1950, the Federal Probation Officer for the Eastern District of Tennessee petitioned for a bench warrant in which it was charged that appellant had violated his probation. This warrant was lodged with the Tennessee Penitentiary authorities on July 2, 1950. After serving his sentence in the Tennessee institution he was tried by due process of law in the United States District Court for Eastern Tennessee for violation of his probation, was convicted, and his suspended sentence was revoked, and the original sentence of the federal court ordered to be served.

*347 The petition charging probation violation having been filed on June 2, 1950, which was within the three-year time limit prescribed in the original order of conviction, sentence and probation entered by the United States District Court on March 7, 1949, it is our judgment that the United States District Court properly denied appellant’s motion to vacate the sentence, there being no authority whatever to sustain such motion. Authorities are to the contrary. See Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 42 S.Ct. 309, 66 L.Ed. 607; Powell v. Sanford, 5 Cir., 156 F.2d 355; Rawls v. United States, 10 Cir., 166 F.2d 532.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court denying the motion to vacate the sentence is ordered to be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted and sentenced by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee to five years imprisonment for violation of federal law and was placed on probation for a period of three years. He was held by the United States Marshal, however, until taken to the State of Iowa where he served a prison term for violation of the law of that State.

Upon release from the Iowa prison, he came to Tennessee where he committed a crime against the laws of that State, for which he was convicted and sentenced on May 19, 1950. On June 2, 1950, the Federal Probation Officer for the Eastern District of Tennessee petitioned for a bench warrant in which it was charged that appellant had violated his probation. This warrant was lodged with the Tennessee Penitentiary authorities on July 2, 1950. After serving his sentence in the Tennessee institution he was tried by due process of law in the United States District Court for Eastern Tennessee for violation of his probation, was convicted, and his suspended sentence was revoked, and the original sentence of the federal court ordered to be served.

*347 The petition charging probation violation having been filed on June 2, 1950, which was within the three-year time limit prescribed in the original order of conviction, sentence and probation entered by the United States District Court on March 7, 1949, it is our judgment that the United States District Court properly denied appellant’s motion to vacate the sentence, there being no authority whatever to sustain such motion. Authorities are to the contrary. See Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 42 S.Ct. 309, 66 L.Ed. 607; Powell v. Sanford, 5 Cir., 156 F.2d 355; Rawls v. United States, 10 Cir., 166 F.2d 532.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court denying the motion to vacate the sentence is ordered to be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 F.2d 346, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pult-v-united-states-ca6-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack