HUDSPETH ET AL.
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the indictment sufficiently alleged criminal intent and that the motion to vacate the sentence was not the proper avenue for the alleged error.
Appellants were sentenced for violating a bank robbery statute. They appealed the denial of their petition to vacate the sentence, arguing the indictm…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Collateral Attack On Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*69] PER CURIAM.
Upon an appeal from an order denying a petition for the vacation of a sentence under Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, it appears that the appellants were sentenced for violation of a bank robbery statute, Title 12 U.S.C.A. § 588(.b).1 The indictment contained two counts in pursuance of subsections (a) and (b) and the appellants were sentenced for the term provided by subsection (b).
The ground for the petition and principal basis for the appeal is .that the second count in the indictment failed to allege criminal intent. The argument is without merit. Since both subsections define but a single offense and subsection (b) merely provides for greater punishment for the crime in its aggravated form, they must be read together. So likewise must the counts of the indictment. So viewed the indictment sufficiently, in its first count, contains the essential allegation of intent.
Moreover, § 2255 of the Judicial Code provides a remedy co-extensive with habeas corpus and so errors of fact or law at the trial may not thereunder be raised if the court has jurisdiction. Only where the sentence is void or otherwise subject to collateral attack may the attack be made by motion under that section. Davilman v. U. S., 6 Cir., 180 F. 2d 284, 286; Taylor v. U. S., 4 Cir., 177 F. 2d 194.
The judgment below is affirmed.
. Now 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crow v. United States, 186 F.2d 704 (9th Cir. 1950)
-
United States v. Shields, 291 F.2d 798 (6th Cir. 1961)
-
Hill v. United States, 223 F.2d 699 (6th Cir. 1955)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 177 F.2d 194 (4th Cir. 1949)
- Davilman v. United States, 180 F.2d 284 (6th Cir. 1950)