United States v. James Dale Patmore

475 F.2d 752, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10911
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedMarch 26, 1973
Docket72-1402
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 475 F.2d 752 (United States v. James Dale Patmore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth 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. James Dale Patmore, 475 F.2d 752, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10911 (10th Cir. 1973).

Opinions

PICKETT, Circuit Judge.

While imprisoned at the Leavenworth, Kansas, federal penitentiary, Patmore was accused of stabbing another inmate. He was indicted in federal court for aggravated battery in violation of Kan. Stat.Ann.1971 Supp. 21-3414(c), a class C felony, through the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13, (1970).1 During the course of the trial Patmore entered a plea of guilty to aggravated assault, a lesser included offense and a violation of Kan.Stat.Ann.1971 Supp. 21-3410(a). He was sentenced to serve a three to ten year sentence under Kan. Stat.Ann.1971 Supp. 21-4501 (d).

Patmore’s only contention on appeal is that there is a federal assault statute, 18 U.S.C. § 113(c) (1970), that defines the same offense as the Kansas statute to which he pleaded guilty, and that he should have been sentenced under the federal statute, which provides for a maximum penalty of five years. Patmore’s “Motion to Correct Excessive Sentence” was overruled. The trial court held that the state and federal statutes were not identical since the federal statute required proof of specific intent to do bodily harm, whereas the Kansas statute made no mention of specific intent.2 We hold that the precise acts to which Patmore pleaded guilty were made penal by the federal statute defining assault, 18 U.S.C. § 113(c) (1970), and cannot be redefined by application of the Assimilative Crimes Act.

The crime of assault is defined in Kan.Stat.Ann.1971 Supp. 21-3408 as “an intentional threat or attempt to do bodily harm to another. . . .” This language, when read in conjunction with Kan.Stat.Ann.1971 Supp. 21-3410(a), is the equivalent'of 18 U.S.C. § 113(c) (1970) .

The purpose of the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C; § 13 (1970), is to supplement the Criminal Code of the United States by adopting state criminal statutes relating to acts or omissions committed within areas over which the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction and which are “not made punishable by any enactment of Congress.” The Act has no application if such acts or omissions are made penal by federal statute. United States v. Sharpnack, 355 U.S. 286, 78 S.Ct. 291, 2 L.Ed.2d 282 (1958); Williams v. United States, 327 U.S. 711, 66 S.Ct. 778, 90 L.Ed. 962 (1946); Dunaway v. United States, 170 F.2d 11 (10th Cir. 1948); Fields v. United States, 438 F.2d 205 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 907, 91 S.Ct. 2214, 29 L.Ed.2d 684 (1971) . In the instant case, Patmore pleaded guilty to unlawfully assaulting or striking at another with a deadly weapon, which is a class D felony under the Kansas statute. AÍthoügh the crime may be within the definition of the Kansas statute, it is punishable under the provisions qf 18 U.S.C. § 113(c) (1970), which prevail. Hockenberry v. United States, 422 F.2d 171 (9th Cir. 1970). A federal criminal statute -may not be enlárged or diminished by a state statute. Williams v. United States, 327 U.S. 711, 718, 66 S.Ct. 778, 90 L.Ed. 962 (1946).

The judgment and sentence is set aside, and the cause remanded for sen[754]*754tencing under 18 U.S.C. § 113(c) (1970).

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

Related

United States v. Bradley J. Devenport
131 F.3d 604 (Seventh Circuit, 1997)
United States v. James M. Lewis Debra Faye Lewis
92 F.3d 1371 (Fifth Circuit, 1996)
United States v. Lewis
Fifth Circuit, 1996
United States v. Marvin Goodman, A/K/A Kenzie
64 F.3d 660 (Fourth Circuit, 1995)
United States v. Lewis
848 F. Supp. 692 (W.D. Louisiana, 1994)
United States v. Harry Lynn Hall
979 F.2d 320 (Third Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Wallace Johnson, Jr.
967 F.2d 1431 (Tenth Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Broadnax
688 F. Supp. 1080 (E.D. Virginia, 1988)
United States v. Robertson
638 F. Supp. 1202 (E.D. Virginia, 1986)
United States v. Smith
614 F. Supp. 454 (D. Maine, 1985)
United States v. Gennie Lynn Brown
608 F.2d 551 (Fifth Circuit, 1979)
United States v. Coleman
475 F. Supp. 422 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1979)
United States v. Dawkins
7 M.J. 720 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1979)
United States v. Eades
455 F. Supp. 436 (D. Maryland, 1978)
United States v. Narciso
446 F. Supp. 252 (E.D. Michigan, 1977)
United States v. William A. Walker
557 F.2d 741 (Tenth Circuit, 1977)
Donald Lee Shirley v. United States
554 F.2d 767 (Sixth Circuit, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
475 F.2d 752, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-james-dale-patmore-ca10-1973.