Wilson v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Wilson v. United States

154 F.2d 908, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2133

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 22, 1946

DocketNo. 10144

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 154 F.2d 908 (Wilson v. United States) 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

Wilson v. United States, 154 F.2d 908, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2133 (6th Cir. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The controversy out of which this appeal arises was before this court in Wilson v. Bell, Warden, 6 Cir., 137 F.2d 716. In that case, while we upheld the judgment of the District Court denying a writ of habeas corpus, we held that the original judgment of seven and one-half years as pronounced from the bench in the robbery case could not be increased by nunc pro tunc order to ten years. We therefore concluded that as to the excessive two and one-half years the sentence is invalid.

Appellant, subsequent to our holding in Wilson v. Bell, Warden, filed a motion to vacate judgment and sentence, in which he reiterated many of the contentions made in the habeas corpus case. We do not discuss at length the contentions that the robbery indictment (case No. 13,-166) was invalid; that appellant was denied constitutional rights at the trial, and was innocent of the charges preferred against him. The appellant was represented by counsel, and pleaded guilty in open court to the charges in question. The indictment fairly informed the appellant of the charge against him and was sufficiently specific, within the holdings in Cochran and Sayre v. [909]*909United States, 157 U.S. 286, 290, 15 S.Ct. 628, 39 L.Ed. 704; Rosen v. United States, 161 U.S. 29, 34, 16 S.Ct. 434, 480, 40 L.Ed. 606; Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427, 52 S.Ct. 417, 76 L.Ed. 861; Bogy v. United States, 6 Cir., 96 F.2d 734; Hughes v. United States, 6 Cir., 114 F.2d 285.

However, the District Court erred in failing to correct the sentence in view of our direction in Wilson v. Bell, Warden, supra. It was the duty of the district attorney to apply for such a correction in accordance with our holding.

The case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to correct the sentence in case No. 13,166 in conformity with our opinion in Wilson v. Bell, Warden, supra.

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

PER CURIAM.

The controversy out of which this appeal arises was before this court in Wilson v. Bell, Warden, 6 Cir., 137 F.2d 716. In that case, while we upheld the judgment of the District Court denying a writ of habeas corpus, we held that the original judgment of seven and one-half years as pronounced from the bench in the robbery case could not be increased by nunc pro tunc order to ten years. We therefore concluded that as to the excessive two and one-half years the sentence is invalid.

Appellant, subsequent to our holding in Wilson v. Bell, Warden, filed a motion to vacate judgment and sentence, in which he reiterated many of the contentions made in the habeas corpus case. We do not discuss at length the contentions that the robbery indictment (case No. 13,-166) was invalid; that appellant was denied constitutional rights at the trial, and was innocent of the charges preferred against him. The appellant was represented by counsel, and pleaded guilty in open court to the charges in question. The indictment fairly informed the appellant of the charge against him and was sufficiently specific, within the holdings in Cochran and Sayre v. [909]*909United States, 157 U.S. 286, 290, 15 S.Ct. 628, 39 L.Ed. 704; Rosen v. United States, 161 U.S. 29, 34, 16 S.Ct. 434, 480, 40 L.Ed. 606; Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427, 52 S.Ct. 417, 76 L.Ed. 861; Bogy v. United States, 6 Cir., 96 F.2d 734; Hughes v. United States, 6 Cir., 114 F.2d 285.

However, the District Court erred in failing to correct the sentence in view of our direction in Wilson v. Bell, Warden, supra. It was the duty of the district attorney to apply for such a correction in accordance with our holding.

The case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to correct the sentence in case No. 13,166 in conformity with our opinion in Wilson v. Bell, Warden, supra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 F.2d 908, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-united-states-ca6-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack