EDDIE ODOM, 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 absence of an arrest warrant, even with time to obtain one, does not invalidate an otherwise valid arrest, and an increased sentence is permissible if based on additional information.
Appellant was convicted under the Dyer Act and appealed his conviction and sentence. He argued that his arrest and subsequent search were illegal due …
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 Arrest Warrant cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is the second appeal for the appellant convicted for the violation of the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2313. On the first appeal this Court reversed Odom v. United States (5th Cir. 1967) 377 F. 2d 853.
In this forma pauperis appeal, appellant primarily contends that the officer making the arrest had adequate time to obtain a warrant and since the arrest was made without warrant the arrest and subsequent search was illegal. We hold all points raised as to this contention to be without merit. The absence of an arrest warrant, even though there may be sufficient time to obtain one, does not invalidate an otherwise valid arrest. United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 70 S.Ct. 430, 94 L.Ed. 653; Abramson v. United States (5th Cir. 1964) 326 F. 2d 565; and Dailey v. United States (5th Cir. 1958) 261 F. 2d 870.
We find no error committed by increasing the sentence of the appellant to three years as compared to the original two year sentence given by the first trial judge. The record clearly discloses that the sentencing judge was in possession of additional information concerning the appellant which information was considered in measuring the increased sentence. Marano v. United States, 1 Cir., 1967, 374 F. 2d 583; United States ex rel. Starner v. Russell, 3 Cir., 1967, 378 F. 2d 808, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 889, 88 S.Ct. 166, 19 L.Ed.2d 189; United States v. White, 7 Cir., 1967, 382 F. 2d 445, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1052, 88 S.Ct. 796, 19 L.Ed.2d 846.
We are not unmindful of the Fourth Circuit opinion,1 which discusses the constitutionality of an increase in a subsequent sentence, but under the facts of our case we do not believe the constitutional question is raised by the increased sentence.
There are numerous cases holding that a sentence within the limits of the statute is within the discretion of the trial court and not subject to change by the Appellate Court. This Court has so held in recent cases. See Castle v. United States, 5 Cir., 1968, 399 F. 2d 642; Henderson v. Dutton, 5 Cir., 397 F. 2d 375; Lacaze v. United States, 5 Cir., 1968, 391 F. 2d 516; Sibley v. United States, 5 Cir., 1965, 344 F. 2d 103.
Affirmed.
. Patton v. State of North Carolina, 4 Cir., 1967, 381 F. 2d 636, cert. denied, 1968, 390 U.S. 905, 88 S.Ct. 818, 19 L.Ed.2d 871.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reis v. State, 248 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
-
Florentino Falcon v. State, 226 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 1969)
-
State v. Perez, 277 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1973)
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 (17 total)
- United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1950)
- Odom v. United States, 377 F.2d 853 (5th Cir. 1967)
- Pasquale J. Marano, Jr. v. United States, 374 F.2d 583 (1st Cir. 1967)
- Patton v. State OF N.C., 381 F.2d 636 (4th Cir. 1967)
- Lacaze v. United States, 391 F.2d 516 (5th Cir. 1968)
- United States v. White, 382 F.2d 445 (7th Cir. 1967)
- Castle v. United States, 399 F.2d 642 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Dailey v. United States, 261 F.2d 870 (5th Cir. 1958)
- Walker v. Kansas, 390 U.S. 905 (U.S. 1968)
- United States ex rel. Donald E. Starner v. Russell, 378 F.2d 808 (3d Cir. 1967)