United States v. Daniel Lee Sappington

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Daniel Lee Sappington

527 F.2d 508, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 11395

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedDecember 18, 1975

Docket75--1678

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 527 F.2d 508 (United States v. Daniel Lee Sappington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Daniel Lee Sappington, 527 F.2d 508, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 11395 (8th Cir. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Lee Sappington was convicted of possession of funds stolen from a federally insured savings and loan institution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(c) on October 9, 1968. He appealed that conviction, but pursuant to his motion the appeal was dismissed on June 5, 1969. Long after the time for appeal had run Sappington moved to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, for the reason that he was not sentenced in accordance with the Federal Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5005 et seq., and the mandate of Dorszynski v. United States, 418 U.S. 424, 94 S.Ct. 3042, 41 L.Ed.2d 855 (1974). Relief was denied by the district court on February 12, 1975. We reversed this determination and remanded for resentencing, because of inadequate compliance with Dorszynski, in Sappington v. United States, 518 F.2d 28 (8th Cir. 1975). The district court resentenced Sappington on August 15, 1975, in accordance with our mandate, finding defendant would not have benefited from sentencing under the Youth Corrections Act.

Petitioner now appeals the order of August 15, 1975, but does not allege error in the resentencing procedure. Instead, he alleges two errors in his trial, more than seven years ago, as grounds for appeal. 1

Matters not presented to the district court in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings may not be considered on appeal. Brown v. United States, 454 F.2d 45, 46 (8th Cir. 1972). Furthermore, section 2255 is not a substitute for direct appeal, and matters which could have been raised on appeal will not be con *509 sidered. Mixen v. United States, 469 F.2d 203, 205 n. 2 (8th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 906, 93 S.Ct. 2297, 36 L.Ed.2d 971 (1973); Cardarella v. United States, 375 F.2d 222, 231 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 882, 88 S.Ct. 129, 19 L.Ed.2d 176 (1967); Etherton v. United States, 249 F.2d 410, 412, 17 Alaska 274 (9th Cir. 1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 919, 78 S.Ct. 349, 2 L.Ed.2d 278 (1958). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

1

. The identical issues which Sappington seeks to raise here were decided adversely to his co-defendant in the direct appeal of her conviction. United States v. Whitney, 425 F.2d 169 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 935, 90 S.Ct. 2267, 26 L.Ed.2d 808 (1970).

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

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Lee Sappington was convicted of possession of funds stolen from a federally insured savings and loan institution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(c) on October 9, 1968. He appealed that conviction, but pursuant to his motion the appeal was dismissed on June 5, 1969. Long after the time for appeal had run Sappington moved to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, for the reason that he was not sentenced in accordance with the Federal Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5005 et seq., and the mandate of Dorszynski v. United States, 418 U.S. 424, 94 S.Ct. 3042, 41 L.Ed.2d 855 (1974). Relief was denied by the district court on February 12, 1975. We reversed this determination and remanded for resentencing, because of inadequate compliance with Dorszynski, in Sappington v. United States, 518 F.2d 28 (8th Cir. 1975). The district court resentenced Sappington on August 15, 1975, in accordance with our mandate, finding defendant would not have benefited from sentencing under the Youth Corrections Act.

Petitioner now appeals the order of August 15, 1975, but does not allege error in the resentencing procedure. Instead, he alleges two errors in his trial, more than seven years ago, as grounds for appeal. 1

Matters not presented to the district court in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings may not be considered on appeal. Brown v. United States, 454 F.2d 45, 46 (8th Cir. 1972). Furthermore, section 2255 is not a substitute for direct appeal, and matters which could have been raised on appeal will not be con *509 sidered. Mixen v. United States, 469 F.2d 203, 205 n. 2 (8th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 906, 93 S.Ct. 2297, 36 L.Ed.2d 971 (1973); Cardarella v. United States, 375 F.2d 222, 231 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 882, 88 S.Ct. 129, 19 L.Ed.2d 176 (1967); Etherton v. United States, 249 F.2d 410, 412, 17 Alaska 274 (9th Cir. 1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 919, 78 S.Ct. 349, 2 L.Ed.2d 278 (1958). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

1

. The identical issues which Sappington seeks to raise here were decided adversely to his co-defendant in the direct appeal of her conviction. United States v. Whitney, 425 F.2d 169 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 935, 90 S.Ct. 2267, 26 L.Ed.2d 808 (1970).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

527 F.2d 508, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 11395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-daniel-lee-sappington-ca8-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack