United States v. Frank E. Dennison

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Frank E. Dennison

437 F.2d 439, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12018

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 5, 1971

Docket20482_1

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 437 F.2d 439 (United States v. Frank E. Dennison) 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. Frank E. Dennison, 437 F.2d 439, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12018 (8th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant pled guilty to the charge of interstate transportation of forged securities in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. He was sentenced on April 3, 1970 by the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri to a term of five years imprisonment with parole eligibility under 18 U.S.C. § 4208(a) (2). This sentence was ordered to be served concurrently with another five year term previously imposed upon appellant by the district court on February 9, 1970. On July 20, 1970, within the time allowed by Rule 35, Fed.R.Crim.P., appellant filed a motion to reduce his sentence, which the district court denied by order entered July 21, 1970. The district court then granted appellant leave to proceed on appeal in forma pau-peris.

Appellant has filed no brief in our court, but has merely resubmitted the same motion to reduce sentence which was presented to the district court. A Rule 35 motion to reduce a sentence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Jacobsen v. United States, 260 F.2d 122 (8th Cir. 1958); United States v. Garrick, 399 F.2d 685 (4th Cir. 1968). An appellate court has no authority to reduce or modify a sentence which was legally imposed and which is within the statutory limit. Heath v. United States, 375 F.2d 521, 523 (8th Cir. 1967); Zaffarano v. Blackwell, 383 F.2d 719 (5th Cir. 1967); McCartney v. United States, 382 F.2d 116, 118 (9th Cir. 1967). The five year term of imprisonment to which appellant was sentenced is well within the allowable maximum, as the court could have imposed a sentence of ten years for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314.

Therefore, on this record we are compelled to hold that the motion for reduction of sentence was properly denied. The frivolity of this appeal impels us to observe, as a caveat to the district courts in this Circuit, that where a prisoner’s post conviction application for relief, including but not limited to collateral attacks upon the judgment and sentence, are demonstrably devoid of substance so that an appeal would be futile, the district courts should exercise restraint in permitting the petitioner to pursue his complaints to a reviewing court.

The appeal, being legally frivolous, is dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant pled guilty to the charge of interstate transportation of forged securities in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. He was sentenced on April 3, 1970 by the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri to a term of five years imprisonment with parole eligibility under 18 U.S.C. § 4208(a) (2). This sentence was ordered to be served concurrently with another five year term previously imposed upon appellant by the district court on February 9, 1970. On July 20, 1970, within the time allowed by Rule 35, Fed.R.Crim.P., appellant filed a motion to reduce his sentence, which the district court denied by order entered July 21, 1970. The district court then granted appellant leave to proceed on appeal in forma pau-peris.

Appellant has filed no brief in our court, but has merely resubmitted the same motion to reduce sentence which was presented to the district court. A Rule 35 motion to reduce a sentence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Jacobsen v. United States, 260 F.2d 122 (8th Cir. 1958); United States v. Garrick, 399 F.2d 685 (4th Cir. 1968). An appellate court has no authority to reduce or modify a sentence which was legally imposed and which is within the statutory limit. Heath v. United States, 375 F.2d 521, 523 (8th Cir. 1967); Zaffarano v. Blackwell, 383 F.2d 719 (5th Cir. 1967); McCartney v. United States, 382 F.2d 116, 118 (9th Cir. 1967). The five year term of imprisonment to which appellant was sentenced is well within the allowable maximum, as the court could have imposed a sentence of ten years for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314.

Therefore, on this record we are compelled to hold that the motion for reduction of sentence was properly denied. The frivolity of this appeal impels us to observe, as a caveat to the district courts in this Circuit, that where a prisoner’s post conviction application for relief, including but not limited to collateral attacks upon the judgment and sentence, are demonstrably devoid of substance so that an appeal would be futile, the district courts should exercise restraint in permitting the petitioner to pursue his complaints to a reviewing court.

The appeal, being legally frivolous, is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

437 F.2d 439, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-frank-e-dennison-ca8-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack