William Thomas Shields, Appellant-Movant v. United States of America, Appellee-Respondent

Sixth Circuit

William Thomas Shields, Appellant-Movant v. United States of America, Appellee-Respondent

310 F.2d 708, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3365

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedDecember 11, 1962

Docket14966

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 310 F.2d 708 (William Thomas Shields, Appellant-Movant v. United States of America, Appellee-Respondent) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

William Thomas Shields, Appellant-Movant v. United States of America, Appellee-Respondent, 310 F.2d 708, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3365 (6th Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER.

This cause came on to be heard on the briefs, argument of counsel and the full record in the case, from which it appears the appellant was convicted and sentenced in the District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on a two-count indictment charging the forgery of a United States Treasury check and the uttering of the same respectively, both counts involving alleged violations of Title 18 U.S.C. § 495.

Appellant was given five years imprisonment by the District Judge on each count, the sentences to be served consecutively. Appellant filed in the District Court a “Motion to Correct Judicial Process”, and this appeal is taken from the court’s denial of same, appellant here raising the sole question, “whether District Courts of the United States have the power to impose consecutive sentences on different counts in the same indictment” ;

And it appearing that the separate counts of the indictment herein charge separate and distinct offenses, Marshall v. United States, 299 F.2d 141 (C.A. 10), 1962, and that the imposition of consecutive sentences for same is discretionary with the District Court pursuant to power inherent in the court, Papalardo v. United States, 260 F.2d 326 (C.A. 6), 1958; Sherman v. United States, 241 F.2d 329 (C.A. 9), 1957, cert. denied, 354 U.S. 911, 77 S.Ct. 1299, 1 L.Ed.2d 1429; Carmack v. United States, 296 F.2d 893 (C.A. 10), 1961; Swepston v. United States, 289 F.2d 166 (C.A. 8), 1961, cert. denied, 369 U.S. 812, 82 S.Ct. 689, 7 L.Ed.2d 612; Smith v. Taylor, 297 F.2d 927 (C.A. 10), 1962; and Marshall v. United States, supra;

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the consecutive sentences herein imposed are valid and the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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

ORDER.

This cause came on to be heard on the briefs, argument of counsel and the full record in the case, from which it appears the appellant was convicted and sentenced in the District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on a two-count indictment charging the forgery of a United States Treasury check and the uttering of the same respectively, both counts involving alleged violations of Title 18 U.S.C. § 495.

Appellant was given five years imprisonment by the District Judge on each count, the sentences to be served consecutively. Appellant filed in the District Court a “Motion to Correct Judicial Process”, and this appeal is taken from the court’s denial of same, appellant here raising the sole question, “whether District Courts of the United States have the power to impose consecutive sentences on different counts in the same indictment” ;

And it appearing that the separate counts of the indictment herein charge separate and distinct offenses, Marshall v. United States, 299 F.2d 141 (C.A. 10), 1962, and that the imposition of consecutive sentences for same is discretionary with the District Court pursuant to power inherent in the court, Papalardo v. United States, 260 F.2d 326 (C.A. 6), 1958; Sherman v. United States, 241 F.2d 329 (C.A. 9), 1957, cert. denied, 354 U.S. 911, 77 S.Ct. 1299, 1 L.Ed.2d 1429; Carmack v. United States, 296 F.2d 893 (C.A. 10), 1961; Swepston v. United States, 289 F.2d 166 (C.A. 8), 1961, cert. denied, 369 U.S. 812, 82 S.Ct. 689, 7 L.Ed.2d 612; Smith v. Taylor, 297 F.2d 927 (C.A. 10), 1962; and Marshall v. United States, supra;

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the consecutive sentences herein imposed are valid and the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

310 F.2d 708, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-thomas-shields-appellant-movant-v-united-states-of-america-ca6-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack