United States v. Marty Russo

Second Circuit

United States v. Marty Russo

235 F.2d 477, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3888

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJuly 19, 1956

Docket378, Docket 23952

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 235 F.2d 477 (United States v. Marty Russo) 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. Marty Russo, 235 F.2d 477, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3888 (2d Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Russo and nine co-defendants were indicted. The indictment charged them, under 18 U.S.C. § 371, with conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 2312 by the transportation of stolen automobiles in interstate and foreign commerce. The indictment alleged the commission of overt acts, in furtherance of the conspiracy, by named defendants other than Russo. The defendants were convicted. On Russo’s appeal from the judgment of conviction, we affirmed. Then Russo, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, moved the district court to vacate the judgment, on the. ground that the indictment was defective. The district court entered an order denying this motion, without a hearing because “the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the petition is entitled to no relief.” Russo has appealed from this order.

We think the motion wholly without merit: It was not necessary, on a conspiracy charge, to allege an actual violation of the substantive provisions of the statute. Nor was it essential to allege that Russo, as distinguished from other alleged conspirators, committed an overt act, 1 or to describe the vehicles transported. Accordingly, the judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion without a hearing.

Affirmed.

1

. United States v. Rabinowich, 238 U.S. 78, 86, 35 S.Ct. 682, 59 L.Ed. 1211; Bergen v. United States, 8 Cir., 145 F.2d 181, 187-188.

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

PER CURIAM.

Russo and nine co-defendants were indicted. The indictment charged them, under 18 U.S.C. § 371, with conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 2312 by the transportation of stolen automobiles in interstate and foreign commerce. The indictment alleged the commission of overt acts, in furtherance of the conspiracy, by named defendants other than Russo. The defendants were convicted. On Russo’s appeal from the judgment of conviction, we affirmed. Then Russo, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, moved the district court to vacate the judgment, on the. ground that the indictment was defective. The district court entered an order denying this motion, without a hearing because “the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the petition is entitled to no relief.” Russo has appealed from this order.

We think the motion wholly without merit: It was not necessary, on a conspiracy charge, to allege an actual violation of the substantive provisions of the statute. Nor was it essential to allege that Russo, as distinguished from other alleged conspirators, committed an overt act, 1 or to describe the vehicles transported. Accordingly, the judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion without a hearing.

Affirmed.

1

. United States v. Rabinowich, 238 U.S. 78, 86, 35 S.Ct. 682, 59 L.Ed. 1211; Bergen v. United States, 8 Cir., 145 F.2d 181, 187-188.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 F.2d 477, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-marty-russo-ca2-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack