JOHN MOSS, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
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 issues concerning the intrinsic facts of the offense must be raised on direct appeal, not through a collateral proceeding like a motion to correct a sentence.
Appellant sought to correct his sentence under Rule 35, arguing it was void. The court treated the motion as an application under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.…
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 Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Approximately six months after the sentence on his plea of guilty, appellant sought a correction of it under F.R.Cr.P. 35, 18 U.S.C.A. As Rule 35 contemplates the correction of a sentence of a court having jurisdiction, Fooshee v. United States, 5 Cir., 1953, 203 F. 2d 247, the Court properly considered the papers as an application under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 since it was urged that the sentence was void, not merely imperfect.
Moss was a confederate of Meyers, whose appeal, Meyers v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 260 F. 2d 956, grew out of the very swindle involved here. That decision, and Londos v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 240 F. 2d 1, certiorari denied Dudley v. United States, 353 U.S. 949, 77 S.Ct. 860, 1 L.Ed.2d 858, foreclose the questions here presented on the sufficiency of the indictment to state an offense under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2314. These concern the elements of interstate or foreign transportation and the status of the customer’s draft instrument as a falsely made and forged security.
The remaining complaints go to the question of whether the intrinsic facts would establish the charge. Such matters must be presented by direct appeal and may not be reviewed by this collateral proceeding. Arthur v. United States, 5 Cir., 1956, 230 F. 2d 666; Caw-ley v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 251 F. 2d 461; McCreary v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 249 F. 2d 433.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gilinsky v. United States, 335 F.2d 914 (9th Cir. 1964)
-
Aeby v. United States, 267 F.2d 540 (5th Cir. 1959)
-
Schmidt v. United States, 286 F.2d 11 (5th Cir. 1961)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Arthur v. United States, 230 F.2d 666 (5th Cir. 1956)
- Londos v. United States, 240 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1957)
- McCREARY v. United States, 249 F.2d 433 (5th Cir. 1957)
- Fooshee v. United States, 203 F.2d 247 (5th Cir. 1953)
- Atwood v. Lydick, 353 U.S. 949 (U.S. 1957)
- Shirley-Duke Apts. v. Mason, 353 U.S. 949 (U.S. 1957)
- Cawley v. United States, 251 F.2d 461 (5th Cir. 1958)
- Meyers v. United States, 260 F.2d 956 (5th Cir. 1958)