PAUL HANDY NUNLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE

10th Cir. | 1964-12-14
No. 7844
339 F.2d 442 United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (1964) Positive Treatment
Cited by 7 cases

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.


Holding

An indictment for violating federal narcotic laws is sufficient even if it does not name the purchaser, and a judgment of conviction bars further prosecution.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant sought post-conviction relief, arguing his conviction was void because the indictment and record did not name the purchaser of narcotics. He…

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.


Opinion of the Court
LEWIS, Circuit Judge.

LEWIS, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is the latest of a series of unmeritorious attempts by appellant to •obtain post-conviction relief from sentences imposed after the entry of pleas of guilty to each of five counts of an indictment charging violations of federal narcotic laws. See Nunley v. United States, 10 Cir., 283 F. 2d 651; Nunley v. United States, 10 Cir., 294 F. 2d 579, cert, denied, 368 U.S. 991, 82 S.Ct. 607, 7 L.Ed.2d 527; Nunley v. Chandler, 10 Cir., 308 F. 2d 223; Nunley v. Taylor, 10 Cir., 330 F. 2d 611. By motion purportedly filed under Rule 35, Fed.R.Cr.P., and broadened by the trial court for consideration under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, he now asserts that his judgment of conviction is void because the name of the purchaser to whom he sold narcotics is neither set out in the indictment nor does it appear elsewhere in the record. Relief was denied by the trial court and we affirm.

An indictment is sufficient that does not name the purchaser or transferee when otherwise patently charging a violation of applicable narcotic laws. Clay v. United States, 10 Cir., 326 F. 2d 196, cert, denied, 377 U.S. 1000, 84 S.Ct. 1930, 12 L.Ed.2d 1050; McDowell v. United States, 10 Cir., 330 F. 2d 920, cert, denied, 377 U.S. 1006, 84 S.Ct. 1944, 12 L.Ed.2d 1055; Casias v. United States, 10 Cir., 331 F. 2d 570; Flores v. United States, 10 Cir., 338 F. 2d 966, filed Dec. 1, 1964.

The nebulous claim that because the record does not elsewhere reflect the name of the purchaser or transferee and thus may potentially expose appellant to the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy is similarly without merit. It is the judgment of conviction that constitutes the bar to further prosecution, Martin v. United States, 10 Cir., 285 F. 2d 150, cert, denied, 365 U.S. 853, 81 S.Ct. 818, 5 L.Ed.2d 816; Casias v. United States, supra; Flores v. United States, supra; and such judgment constitutes a bar to any prosecution that was or could have been embraced within the charge of the indictment. Crain v. United States, 162 U.S. 625, 636, 16 S.Ct. 952, 40 L.Ed. 1097; Turf Center, Inc. v. United States, 9 Cir., 325 F. 2d 793. And see Korholz v. United States, 10 Cir., 269 F. 2d 897, cert, denied, 361 U.S. 929, 880 S.Ct. 367, 4 L.Ed.2d 352.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (22 total)

View all 22 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw