The United States of America v. Robbie Raymond

Second Circuit

The United States of America v. Robbie Raymond

218 F.2d 952, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 2871

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 26, 1955

Docket23309_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 218 F.2d 952 (The United States of America v. Robbie Raymond) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The United States of America v. Robbie Raymond, 218 F.2d 952, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 2871 (2d Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Judge Abruzzo correctly held that in the absence of special designation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3568 defendant’s federal and state sentences cannot be considered to have been served simultaneously. Strewl v. McGrath, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 183, 191 F.2d 347, certiorari denied 343 U.S. 906, 72 S.Ct. 637, 96 L.Ed. 1325. This is particularly true where, as here, the prisoner was surrendered by state authorities under a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum before the state trial and sentence. And although the judge first considered himself free to amend his old sentence to achieve concurrence of sentences, his decision upon reconsideration that he was not empowered to do so is also correct. Since the original sentence was in no way illegal, other grounds for attack were foreclosed by the 60-day limitation of F.R.Cr.P., rule 35, on motions for the correction or reduction of sentence. Nor does F.R.Cr.P., rule 32(d), providing for a delayed withdrawal of a plea of guilty “to correct manifest injustice,” avail the defendant; even if he had entertained hope, when he mad-e his plea, that the sentences eventually to be imposed would run concurrently, his disappointment does not show the injustice required. See United States v. Weese, 2 Cir., 145 F.2d 135.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Judge Abruzzo correctly held that in the absence of special designation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3568 defendant’s federal and state sentences cannot be considered to have been served simultaneously. Strewl v. McGrath, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 183, 191 F.2d 347, certiorari denied 343 U.S. 906, 72 S.Ct. 637, 96 L.Ed. 1325. This is particularly true where, as here, the prisoner was surrendered by state authorities under a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum before the state trial and sentence. And although the judge first considered himself free to amend his old sentence to achieve concurrence of sentences, his decision upon reconsideration that he was not empowered to do so is also correct. Since the original sentence was in no way illegal, other grounds for attack were foreclosed by the 60-day limitation of F.R.Cr.P., rule 35, on motions for the correction or reduction of sentence. Nor does F.R.Cr.P., rule 32(d), providing for a delayed withdrawal of a plea of guilty “to correct manifest injustice,” avail the defendant; even if he had entertained hope, when he mad-e his plea, that the sentences eventually to be imposed would run concurrently, his disappointment does not show the injustice required. See United States v. Weese, 2 Cir., 145 F.2d 135.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 F.2d 952, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 2871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-united-states-of-america-v-robbie-raymond-ca2-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack