United States v. Louis Soviero

Second Circuit

United States v. Louis Soviero

302 F.2d 146, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5236

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 30, 1962

Docket27437_1

StatusPublished

This text of 302 F.2d 146 (United States v. Louis Soviero) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second 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. Louis Soviero, 302 F.2d 146, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5236 (2d Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant pleaded guilty to a count charging him with conspiring with others to rob a bank and to a second count charging him with aiding and abetting the commission of that robbery. He was ‘’sentenced to five years’ imprisonment under the first count, and eight years’ imprisonment under the second count. He now claims that the second sentence must be vacated as double punishment for the same offense. His objection is only to the punishment, since he concedes that he could be convicted of the two offenses. His appeal is therefore frivolous, since the longer sentence can stand; the fact that it was actually the second sentence announced by the court in what was a single proceeding is of no consequence. See Smith v. United States, 9 Cir., 287 F.2d 270, 273-274, certiorari denied 366 U.S. 946, 81 S.Ct. 1676, 6 L.Ed.2d 856. Hence we do not need to consider the government’s further contention that the two offenses are not identical. Defendant’s separate motion for judgment because of late filing of the government’s brief is also denied.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant pleaded guilty to a count charging him with conspiring with others to rob a bank and to a second count charging him with aiding and abetting the commission of that robbery. He was ‘’sentenced to five years’ imprisonment under the first count, and eight years’ imprisonment under the second count. He now claims that the second sentence must be vacated as double punishment for the same offense. His objection is only to the punishment, since he concedes that he could be convicted of the two offenses. His appeal is therefore frivolous, since the longer sentence can stand; the fact that it was actually the second sentence announced by the court in what was a single proceeding is of no consequence. See Smith v. United States, 9 Cir., 287 F.2d 270, 273-274, certiorari denied 366 U.S. 946, 81 S.Ct. 1676, 6 L.Ed.2d 856. Hence we do not need to consider the government’s further contention that the two offenses are not identical. Defendant’s separate motion for judgment because of late filing of the government’s brief is also denied.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 F.2d 146, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-louis-soviero-ca2-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack