Yelvington v. United States

Tenth Circuit

Yelvington v. United States

178 F.2d 915, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2599

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedDecember 22, 1949

Docket3972

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 178 F.2d 915 (Yelvington 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

Yelvington v. United States, 178 F.2d 915, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2599 (10th Cir. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

PHILLIPS, Chief Judge.

Yelvington filed a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to correct a judgment and commitment.

An indictment was returned against Yelvington and five others. It contained eight counts. Counts 1, and 3 to 7, inclusive, charged violations of 18 U.S.C.A. § 408 [now §§ 2311-2313], and the eighth count charged a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 88 [now § 371]. 1 He was convicted on counts 1, and 3 to 8, inclusive. That part of the judgment material here reads as follows: “It is thereupon by the Court here considered, ordered and adjudged that the defendant, Jack Yelvington, for the offenses by him committed, as charged in the first and third counts of the indictment, be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for imprisonment in. an institution of the type to be designated by the Attorney General or his authorized representative for the period of five (5) years from date of delivery, on each of said counts, or until released by due process of law. It is further ordered that said 'sentences of confinement herein shall run consecutively.”

On each of counts 4 to 8, inclusive, imposition of sentence was suspended, and he was placed on probation, to commence upon his release from the sentences of imprisonment imposed under counts 1 and 3. 2

The motion was to modify the judgment and the commitment to show that the sentences of imprisonment were to run concurrently. The trial court denied the motion.

The judgment is clear and definite. It makes it plain that the sentences are to run consecutively. See United States v. Daugherty, 269 U.S. 360, 363, 46 S.Ct. 156, 70 L.Ed. 309; Gillenwaters v. Biddle, 8 Cir., 18 F.2d 206, 207.

Affirmed.

1

. Yelvington was not named in count 2.

2

. The court reporter’s transcript of the language of the court in imposing sentence, in part, reads: “It is the judgment of the court that you be sentenced on the first count to 5 years in the custody of the Attorney General; on the third count 5 years in the custody of the Attorney General, to run consecutively, making a total of 10 years.”

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

PHILLIPS, Chief Judge.

Yelvington filed a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to correct a judgment and commitment.

An indictment was returned against Yelvington and five others. It contained eight counts. Counts 1, and 3 to 7, inclusive, charged violations of 18 U.S.C.A. § 408 [now §§ 2311-2313], and the eighth count charged a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 88 [now § 371]. 1 He was convicted on counts 1, and 3 to 8, inclusive. That part of the judgment material here reads as follows: “It is thereupon by the Court here considered, ordered and adjudged that the defendant, Jack Yelvington, for the offenses by him committed, as charged in the first and third counts of the indictment, be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for imprisonment in. an institution of the type to be designated by the Attorney General or his authorized representative for the period of five (5) years from date of delivery, on each of said counts, or until released by due process of law. It is further ordered that said 'sentences of confinement herein shall run consecutively.”

On each of counts 4 to 8, inclusive, imposition of sentence was suspended, and he was placed on probation, to commence upon his release from the sentences of imprisonment imposed under counts 1 and 3. 2

The motion was to modify the judgment and the commitment to show that the sentences of imprisonment were to run concurrently. The trial court denied the motion.

The judgment is clear and definite. It makes it plain that the sentences are to run consecutively. See United States v. Daugherty, 269 U.S. 360, 363, 46 S.Ct. 156, 70 L.Ed. 309; Gillenwaters v. Biddle, 8 Cir., 18 F.2d 206, 207.

Affirmed.

1

. Yelvington was not named in count 2.

2

. The court reporter’s transcript of the language of the court in imposing sentence, in part, reads: “It is the judgment of the court that you be sentenced on the first count to 5 years in the custody of the Attorney General; on the third count 5 years in the custody of the Attorney General, to run consecutively, making a total of 10 years.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 F.2d 915, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yelvington-v-united-states-ca10-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack