UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
WILLIAM HENRY SEALES, 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 evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for transporting a stolen motor vehicle.
The defendant was apprehended driving a stolen vehicle nineteen days after it was stolen. He claimed to have purchased it from a non-existent establis…
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 Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure Rule 30 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to Local Rule 18 this case has been considered and decided without oral argument.
William Henry Seales was found guilty by a jury of transporting a stolen motor vehicle from Greenville, South Carolina to Mobile, Alabama, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312.
The evidence established without dispute that the vehicle in question was stolen in Greenville on July 30, 1968. The appellant, driving the machine, was apprehended in Mobile nineteen days later. The automobile obviously had been wrecked. A screw driver was in use as a key to the ignition. The tag was improper. Seales had no bill of sale. He explained that he had purchased the machine three or four months previously from a place in Atmore, Alabama. This place was later found to be non-existent.
At the trial, Seales testified that he had not been out of Alabama during the period July 14-August 18. Helen Hottle, alias Helen Seales, testified to like effect.
It is argued here that the evidence did not support the conviction and that the trial court erred in the denial of certain jury instructions requested by the defendant.
No exceptions were taken at the conclusion of the charge, Rule 30, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Under an enormous swarm of prior decisions of this Court, the evidence was sufficient.
The judgment of conviction, therefore, is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Drew, 436 F.2d 529 (5th Cir. 1970)
-
Panda Weeks v. Estelle, 531 F.2d 780 (5th Cir. 1976)
-
United States v. Mann, 432 F.2d 53 (5th Cir. 1970)