UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JESSIE SPENCE SUTTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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 trial court's findings of fact regarding the illegal liquor sale and lack of entrapment were supported, warranting probation revocation.
The defendant's probation was revoked based on an illegal Sunday sale of liquor in Alabama, occurring shortly after a jail sentence expired. An eviden…
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 Summary Calendar cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Ironically, with the ink scarcely dry on our opinion affirming co-defendants’ convictions for the underlying moonshine offenses, United States v. Campbell, 5 Cir., 1969, 419 F. 2d 1144 [Dec. 2, 1969], this appeal on judicial screening1 falls by random assignment to almost the same panel challenging the revocation of probation based upon the illegal Sunday sale of liquor in Alabama just 15 days after the 2-month jail sentence expired.
After an evidential hearing the Court found that the occurrence took place and that it did not constitute entrapment. A revocation proceeding is not the trial of a criminal case, Manning v. United States, 5 Cir., 1947, 161 F. 2d 827, cert. denied, 332 U.S. 792, 68 S.Ct. 102, 92 L.Ed. 374; Broadus v. United States, 5 Cir., 1963, 317 F. 2d 212, cert. denied, 375 U.S. 829, 84 S.Ct. 74, 11 L.Ed.2d 61. The fact findings are fully supportable. That is the end of it.
Affirmed.
. Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F. 2d 804, Part 1; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Co., 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F. 2d 526, Part I [Oct. 7, 1969].
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Faulk v. State, 737 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
-
Amaya v. Beto, 424 F.2d 363 (5th Cir. 1970)
-
Denny Dean Shaw v. Henderson, 430 F.2d 1116 (5th Cir. 1970)
Authorities Cited
- Murphy v. Houma Well Serv., 409 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Huth v. S. Pac. Co., 417 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Manning v. United States, 161 F.2d 827 (5th Cir. 1947)
- Meeker v. Walraven, 375 U.S. 829 (U.S. 1963)
- Jefferson Davis Broadus and Joe Curt Coleman v. United States, 317 F.2d 212 (5th Cir. 1963)
- United States v. Campbell, 419 F.2d 1144 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Manning v. United States, 332 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1947)
- Myers v. N.Y. State Tax Comm'n, 332 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1947)