Wade Hanford v. United States

Fourth Circuit

Wade Hanford v. United States

231 F.2d 661, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3441

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 9, 1956

Docket7132_1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 231 F.2d 661 (Wade Hanford v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wade Hanford v. United States, 231 F.2d 661, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3441 (4th Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal in a criminal case in which appellant with two other persons was convicted of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 to rob a bank, insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113. The conspiracy was clearly established on the trial and an overt act was shown to have been committed in the Western District of North Carolina. The contention of appellant is that no *662 crime under federal law was committed because the robbery was not consummated and no property insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was actually taken. He contends, also, that counsel appointed by the court to represent him was not competent. There is no merit in either point. The crime of conspiracy is a separate and distinct crime from the crime that is its object. “Its essence is in the agreement or confederation to commit a crime, and that is what is punishable as a conspiracy, if any overt act is taken in pursuit of it. The agreement is punishable whether or not the contemplated crime is consummated.” United States v. Bayer, 331 U.S. 532, 542, 67 S.Ct. 1394, 1399, 91 L.Ed. 1654. No basis is shown for the contention that counsel was not competent. Appellant contends that counsel would not argue that the indictment did not charge a crime under federal law and that he did not object to impeaching questions asked appellant when the latter took the stand. It is clear, however, that counsel was correct with respect to both of these matters and that neither furnished any ground for the attack which appellant makes upon him.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal in a criminal case in which appellant with two other persons was convicted of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 to rob a bank, insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113. The conspiracy was clearly established on the trial and an overt act was shown to have been committed in the Western District of North Carolina. The contention of appellant is that no *662 crime under federal law was committed because the robbery was not consummated and no property insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was actually taken. He contends, also, that counsel appointed by the court to represent him was not competent. There is no merit in either point. The crime of conspiracy is a separate and distinct crime from the crime that is its object. “Its essence is in the agreement or confederation to commit a crime, and that is what is punishable as a conspiracy, if any overt act is taken in pursuit of it. The agreement is punishable whether or not the contemplated crime is consummated.” United States v. Bayer, 331 U.S. 532, 542, 67 S.Ct. 1394, 1399, 91 L.Ed. 1654. No basis is shown for the contention that counsel was not competent. Appellant contends that counsel would not argue that the indictment did not charge a crime under federal law and that he did not object to impeaching questions asked appellant when the latter took the stand. It is clear, however, that counsel was correct with respect to both of these matters and that neither furnished any ground for the attack which appellant makes upon him.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 F.2d 661, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wade-hanford-v-united-states-ca4-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack