United States v. Scott Edward Hawkins

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Scott Edward Hawkins

601 F.2d 368, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 13324

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJuly 10, 1979

Docket79-1223

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 601 F.2d 368 (United States v. Scott Edward Hawkins) 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. Scott Edward Hawkins, 601 F.2d 368, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 13324 (8th Cir. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On this direct criminal appeal appellant Scott Edward Hawkins raises two issues: (1) That there is insufficient evidence of his sanity to support the jury’s verdict on that issue; and (2) that the sentence imposed was excessive. Both contentions lack substantial merit and, accordingly, we affirm the conviction.

Hawkins pled guilty to a charge of possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a)(1) and was tried and convicted of kidnapping, transporting the victim’s vehicle across state lines, and using firearms in the commission of the kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a), 2312 and 924(c), respectively. 1 He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment on the kidnapping charge, three years for transporting the stolen vehicle and two years for possession of the firearm, both to run concurrently to the ten year sentence, and five years on the charge of use of the firearm in a kidnapping, to run consecutively to the other sentences.

After careful review of the record in this ease, we are convinced that there is ample testimony, both lay and expert, of Hawkins’ sanity to support the jury’s verdict. See United States v. Archer, 450 F.2d 1106 (8th Cir. 1971); Dusky v. United States, 295 F.2d 743 (8th Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 998, 82 S.Ct. 625, 7 L.Ed.2d 536 (1962).

Although Hawkins contends that the sentence was excessive, there is no claim that the sentence imposed exceeded the statutory maximum. The district court did not manifestly or grossly abuse its discretion in sentencing Hawkins to fifteen years imprisonment. Consequently, we refuse to alter the sentence. See Woosley v. United States, 478 F.2d 139, 147 (8th Cir. 1973).

The conviction and sentence of Hawkins are affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, presided and pronounced sentence.

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

PER CURIAM.

On this direct criminal appeal appellant Scott Edward Hawkins raises two issues: (1) That there is insufficient evidence of his sanity to support the jury’s verdict on that issue; and (2) that the sentence imposed was excessive. Both contentions lack substantial merit and, accordingly, we affirm the conviction.

Hawkins pled guilty to a charge of possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a)(1) and was tried and convicted of kidnapping, transporting the victim’s vehicle across state lines, and using firearms in the commission of the kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a), 2312 and 924(c), respectively. 1 He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment on the kidnapping charge, three years for transporting the stolen vehicle and two years for possession of the firearm, both to run concurrently to the ten year sentence, and five years on the charge of use of the firearm in a kidnapping, to run consecutively to the other sentences.

After careful review of the record in this ease, we are convinced that there is ample testimony, both lay and expert, of Hawkins’ sanity to support the jury’s verdict. See United States v. Archer, 450 F.2d 1106 (8th Cir. 1971); Dusky v. United States, 295 F.2d 743 (8th Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 998, 82 S.Ct. 625, 7 L.Ed.2d 536 (1962).

Although Hawkins contends that the sentence was excessive, there is no claim that the sentence imposed exceeded the statutory maximum. The district court did not manifestly or grossly abuse its discretion in sentencing Hawkins to fifteen years imprisonment. Consequently, we refuse to alter the sentence. See Woosley v. United States, 478 F.2d 139, 147 (8th Cir. 1973).

The conviction and sentence of Hawkins are affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, presided and pronounced sentence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

601 F.2d 368, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 13324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-scott-edward-hawkins-ca8-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack