William Wash McGehee v. United States

Tenth Circuit

William Wash McGehee v. United States

295 F.2d 430, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 3646

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 2, 1961

Docket6725_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 295 F.2d 430 (William Wash McGehee v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

William Wash McGehee v. United States, 295 F.2d 430, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 3646 (10th Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a proceeding under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 in which appellant sought to have sentences imposed after conviction upon informations for offenses arising under the Bank Robbery Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113, set aside as denying him due process under the Fifth Amendment. Relief *431 was denied by the trial court. The sole contention made is that the provisions of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113 constitute but a single offense and that since Sec. 2113(e) carries the potential of a death sentence all accusations under the Act must be initiated by indictment. Rule 7(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S. C.A.

Appellant was specifically charged under Sec. 2113(a), (b), and (d). He waived indictment in open court, pleaded guilty to the charges relating to Sec. 2113 (a) and (b) and the charge under Sec. 2113(d) was dismissed.

In Young v. United States, 10 Cir., 1961, 294 F.2d 517, we held that Sec. 2113 was an aggregation of separate offenses, each subject to prosecution by information unless containing the elements set forth in Sec. 2113(e). Appellant was not charged under (e) and was not denied due process.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a proceeding under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 in which appellant sought to have sentences imposed after conviction upon informations for offenses arising under the Bank Robbery Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113, set aside as denying him due process under the Fifth Amendment. Relief *431 was denied by the trial court. The sole contention made is that the provisions of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113 constitute but a single offense and that since Sec. 2113(e) carries the potential of a death sentence all accusations under the Act must be initiated by indictment. Rule 7(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S. C.A.

Appellant was specifically charged under Sec. 2113(a), (b), and (d). He waived indictment in open court, pleaded guilty to the charges relating to Sec. 2113 (a) and (b) and the charge under Sec. 2113(d) was dismissed.

In Young v. United States, 10 Cir., 1961, 294 F.2d 517, we held that Sec. 2113 was an aggregation of separate offenses, each subject to prosecution by information unless containing the elements set forth in Sec. 2113(e). Appellant was not charged under (e) and was not denied due process.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 F.2d 430, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 3646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-wash-mcgehee-v-united-states-ca10-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack