Robert Benjamin Haynie v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Robert Benjamin Haynie v. United States

474 F.2d 1051, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11354

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 2, 1973

Docket72-3527

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 474 F.2d 1051 (Robert Benjamin Haynie 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

Robert Benjamin Haynie v. United States, 474 F.2d 1051, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11354 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant pleaded guilty to an indictment and to informations which charged him in a total of seven counts with multiple violations of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2314 (interstate transportation of falsely made and forged securities). He was sentenced to five years on each of the seven counts with the sentences to run concurrently. He could have received a maximum sentence of seventy years.

This appeal is from the denial of a motion to vacate the sentences. Appellant alleged that the district court had sentenced him in reliance upon a pre-sentencing report that contained a record of three constitutionally infirm prior state convictions. He urged that in light of these alleged infirmities, he was entitled to be resentenced under the holding of United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972). The district court denied relief summarily. We vacate and remand for further proceedings.

The claim alleged fits well within the teaching of United States v. Tucker, supra, as construed by this court in Lipscomb v. Clark, 5 Cir., 1972, 468 F.2d 1321 [1972]; and as extended to non-maximum sentence cases in Russo v. *1052 United States, 5 Cir., 1972, 470 F.2d 1357 [1972]. The district court did not have the benefit of these decisions at the time judgment was entered. The case must be reconsidered on remand in light of these decisions and handled pursuant to the procedure outlined in Lipscomb v. Clark.

Vacated and remanded with direction.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant pleaded guilty to an indictment and to informations which charged him in a total of seven counts with multiple violations of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2314 (interstate transportation of falsely made and forged securities). He was sentenced to five years on each of the seven counts with the sentences to run concurrently. He could have received a maximum sentence of seventy years.

This appeal is from the denial of a motion to vacate the sentences. Appellant alleged that the district court had sentenced him in reliance upon a pre-sentencing report that contained a record of three constitutionally infirm prior state convictions. He urged that in light of these alleged infirmities, he was entitled to be resentenced under the holding of United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972). The district court denied relief summarily. We vacate and remand for further proceedings.

The claim alleged fits well within the teaching of United States v. Tucker, supra, as construed by this court in Lipscomb v. Clark, 5 Cir., 1972, 468 F.2d 1321 [1972]; and as extended to non-maximum sentence cases in Russo v. *1052 United States, 5 Cir., 1972, 470 F.2d 1357 [1972]. The district court did not have the benefit of these decisions at the time judgment was entered. The case must be reconsidered on remand in light of these decisions and handled pursuant to the procedure outlined in Lipscomb v. Clark.

Vacated and remanded with direction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 F.2d 1051, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-benjamin-haynie-v-united-states-ca5-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack