United States v. Lindh

148 F.2d 332, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2215
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedMarch 14, 1944
DocketNo. 8422
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 148 F.2d 332 (United States v. Lindh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third 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. Lindh, 148 F.2d 332, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2215 (3d Cir. 1944).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant has filed a petition praying this court to remand his case to the District Court “for the sole purpose of modifying” the sentence imposed upon him and for other relief. The petitioner was convicted upon a criminal charge in the District Court of Delaware and was sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment and to a fine .of $1,500. The execution of his sentence of imprisonment was suspended .by the District Court which proceeded to put' the petitioner on probation for two years on conditions which need not be recited here. It appears that the petitioner may be inducted on March 17, 1944, into the United States Army for general military service and has made application to the District Court for release or suspension of the terms of his probation in order that he may be inducted. The court below concluded that it was without power to alter or suspend the terms of the petitioner’s probation because of the pendency of the appeal.

The petition is dismissed. The final judgment in a criminal case is the sentence and in placing the petitioner upon probation the court did not affect the finality of the judgment. Probation “comes as an act of grace to one convicted of a crime.” Escoe v. Zerbst, 295 U.S. 490, 492, 493, 55 S.Ct. 818, 819, 79 L.Ed. 1566. The petitioner’s sentence to eighteen months’ imprisonment and to pay a $1,500 fine was the judgment from which he has appealed and while the District Court is without jurisdiction during the pendency of the appeal to modify that judgment it retained and still does retain, despite the pendency of the appeal, the power to modify or suspend or otherwise deal with the terms of the petitioner’s probation. Probation is separate and distinct from sentence. See Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 213, 214, 58 S.Ct. 164, 82 L.Ed. 204.

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

Related

People v. Miller
53 V.I. 162 (Superior Court of The Virgin Islands, 2010)
State v. Sloman
886 A.2d 1257 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 2005)
Jackson v. State
926 P.2d 1180 (Court of Appeals of Alaska, 1996)
State v. Dubish
696 P.2d 969 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1985)
United States v. Donna Becker
536 F.2d 471 (First Circuit, 1976)
Minovich v. State
306 A.2d 642 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1973)
United States v. Herbert A. Ellenbogen
390 F.2d 537 (Second Circuit, 1968)
People v. Vélez Meléndez
76 P.R. 135 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1954)
El Pueblo de Puerto Rico v. Vélez Meléndez
76 P.R. Dec. 142 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1954)
United States v. Kobey
109 F. Supp. 687 (S.D. California, 1953)
Monjar v. United States
325 U.S. 859 (Supreme Court, 1945)
Springer v. United States
148 F.2d 411 (Ninth Circuit, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
148 F.2d 332, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-lindh-ca3-1944.