United States v. Eidum

474 F.2d 581, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11829
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 6, 1973
DocketNo. 72-2286
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 474 F.2d 581 (United States v. Eidum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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. Eidum, 474 F.2d 581, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11829 (9th Cir. 1973).

Opinion

CONTI, District Judge:

Kenneth W. Eidum pleaded guilty to violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312 (Interstate Transportation of a Stolen Motor Vehicle). The trial judge sentenced him to three years. Eidum moved for modification of sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which motion was denied. He appeals to this court from that denial.

This court has held that when:

“There is a reasonable probability that the defective prior convictions may have led the trial court to impose a heavier sentence than it otherwise would have imposed . . . we are unable to conclude that the reception of such evidence was harmless beyond-a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Tucker, 431 F.2d 1292, 1294 (9th Cir. 1970) affirmed 404 U.S. 443, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1971).

[582]*582In the instant case, the trial judge, in his order denying appellant’s Motion for Modification of Sentence, stated:

“The three convictions to which defendant refers are a very insignificant part of a very long criminal record.”

This court will not refute the judge’s own estimation of the deleterious impact of the prior convictions on his determination of sentence. The record shows on its face that the judge did not consider those convictions in imposing- sentence. Therefore, we affirm.

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

Related

Carpenter v. State
441 A.2d 636 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1982)
Williams v. State
280 N.W.2d 406 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1979)
Samuel Portillo v. United States
588 F.2d 714 (Ninth Circuit, 1978)
Lawrence Leroy Farrow v. United States
580 F.2d 1339 (Ninth Circuit, 1978)
Madison Wilson v. United States
534 F.2d 130 (Ninth Circuit, 1976)
Troglin v. Clanon
378 F. Supp. 281 (N.D. California, 1974)
Gil Munoz Leano v. United States
494 F.2d 361 (Ninth Circuit, 1974)
Bill Harvey Dukes v. United States
492 F.2d 1187 (Ninth Circuit, 1974)
Collier v. United States
367 F. Supp. 554 (E.D. Michigan, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
474 F.2d 581, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-eidum-ca9-1973.