Rudy Franklin Homan v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Rudy Franklin Homan v. United States

464 F.2d 555, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8041

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 4, 1972

Docket72-1921

StatusPublished

This text of 464 F.2d 555 (Rudy Franklin Homan 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

Rudy Franklin Homan v. United States, 464 F.2d 555, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8041 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In a proceeding under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 in the district court, appellant contested his pleas of guilty to charges of burglarizing two banks on the following grounds: (a) improper representation by retained counsel, (b) appellant under influence of narcotics at the time the pleas were entered, (c) pleas induced on promise of specific sentence and place of service, (d) appellant did not understand the nature of charges against him, and (e) improper sentences under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a), (b) and (c). The district court denied relief after a full evidentiary hearing and on written findings of fact and conclusions of law.

There is no merit whatever in the assignments of error based on (a), (b), (c) and (d). As to the improper sentences claim, appellant was charged in one indictment in three counts arising out of the burglary of the Pasadena National Bank. He was charged in another indictment in three counts arising out of the burglary of the Spring Branch Savings and Loan Company. The respective counts in each indictment charged violations of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a), (b) or (c). In view of the holdings of this court in Rose v. United States, 5 Cir., 1971, 448 F.2d 389, and United States v. White, 5 Cir., 1971, 440 F.2d 978, appellant’s convictions based on pleas of guilty must be vacated and the cause remanded so that he may be resentenced on one count only in each of the two indictments involved.

Affirmed in part; vacated in part with direction.

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

PER CURIAM:

In a proceeding under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 in the district court, appellant contested his pleas of guilty to charges of burglarizing two banks on the following grounds: (a) improper representation by retained counsel, (b) appellant under influence of narcotics at the time the pleas were entered, (c) pleas induced on promise of specific sentence and place of service, (d) appellant did not understand the nature of charges against him, and (e) improper sentences under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a), (b) and (c). The district court denied relief after a full evidentiary hearing and on written findings of fact and conclusions of law.

There is no merit whatever in the assignments of error based on (a), (b), (c) and (d). As to the improper sentences claim, appellant was charged in one indictment in three counts arising out of the burglary of the Pasadena National Bank. He was charged in another indictment in three counts arising out of the burglary of the Spring Branch Savings and Loan Company. The respective counts in each indictment charged violations of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a), (b) or (c). In view of the holdings of this court in Rose v. United States, 5 Cir., 1971, 448 F.2d 389, and United States v. White, 5 Cir., 1971, 440 F.2d 978, appellant’s convictions based on pleas of guilty must be vacated and the cause remanded so that he may be resentenced on one count only in each of the two indictments involved.

Affirmed in part; vacated in part with direction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

464 F.2d 555, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rudy-franklin-homan-v-united-states-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack