CHARLES EDWARD EAKES, 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 while the appellant's guilty plea was valid, one of his concurrent sentences must be vacated because the subsections of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 define a single offense with varying maximum punishments.
Charles Edward Eakes pleaded guilty to two counts of bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), and was sentenced to two concurrent twenty-year t…
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 Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Charles Edward Eakes appeals from a denial of his motion to vacate his sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The appellant, represented by court-appointed counsel, was convicted upon his plea of guilty on two counts of an indictment for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d); and a third count under § 2113(b) was dismissed. He was sentenced on April 3, 1967, to serve two concurrent sentences of twenty years. There was no direct appeal.
There is no merit to the contention of the appellant that the judgment should be vacated because the district court misled him as to the sentence which could be imposed, so that his plea of guilty was not made with full understanding of its consequences. Appellant received a lesser sentence than either that which the district court informed appellant it could impose or the maximum sentence provided by law.
The maximum term of imprisonment, however, which can be imposed for violation of § 2113, subsections (a), (b) and (d), where there has been but one bank robbery, is twenty-five years. These subsections do not create separate offenses; rather, they create different maximum punishments for a single offense depending on whether aggravating circumstances exist. Heflin v. United States, 5 Cir., 1955, 223 F. 2d 371; United States v. Williamson, 5 Cir., 1958, 255 F. 2d 512, cert. denied, 358 U.S. 941, 79 S.Ct. 348, 3 L.Ed.2d 349, reversed on another ground, 265 F. 2d 236; United States v. Gardner, 7 Cir., 1965, 347 F. 2d 405, cert. denied, 382 U.S. 1015, 86 S.Ct. 626, 15 L.Ed.2d 529; [Heflin v. United States, 358 U.S. 415, 79 S.Ct. 451, 3 L.Ed.2d 407 (1959), held that consecutive sentences cannot be imposed for violations of subsections (c) and (d) of § 2113.] One of the concurrent sentences imposed in this cause must, therefore, be vacated, and, for this purpose the cause is reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (26 total)
-
United States v. Woodall, 438 F.2d 1317 (5th Cir. 1970)
-
United States v. White, 440 F.2d 978 (5th Cir. 1971)
-
Jewell Wesley Walters v. Harris, 460 F.2d 988 (4th Cir. 1972)
Previewing 3 of 26 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Heflin v. United States, 358 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1959)
- United States v. Ellis Raymond Williamson, 255 F.2d 512 (5th Cir. 1958)
- Lurton Lewis Heflin, Jr. v. United States, 223 F.2d 371 (5th Cir. 1955)
- United States v. Gardner, 347 F.2d 405 (7th Cir. 1965)
- Ellis Raymond Williamson v. United States, 265 F.2d 236 (5th Cir. 1959)
- Dittmeier v. Mo. Real Est. Comm'n, 358 U.S. 941 (U.S. 1959)
- Alvarez v. New York, 358 U.S. 941 (U.S. 1959)
- Gardner v. United States, 382 U.S. 1015 (U.S. 1966)
- Schantz v. Arizona, 382 U.S. 1015 (U.S. 1966)