ROBERT BENJAMIN HAYNIE, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT-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 the district court erred in summarily denying the motion to vacate sentences without considering the impact of constitutionally infirm prior convictions.
Appellant pleaded guilty to interstate transportation of forged securities and was sentenced. He moved to vacate the sentences, alleging reliance on a…
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.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant pleaded guilty to an indictment and to informations which charged him in a total of seven counts with multiple violations of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2314 (interstate transportation of falsely made and forged securities). He was sentenced to five years on each of the seven counts with the sentences to run concurrently. He could have received a maximum sentence of seventy years.
This appeal is from the denial of a motion to vacate the sentences. Appellant alleged that the district court had sentenced him in reliance upon a pre-sentencing report that contained a record of three constitutionally infirm prior state convictions. He urged that in light of these alleged infirmities, he was entitled to be resentenced under the holding of United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972). The district court denied relief summarily. We vacate and remand for further proceedings.
The claim alleged fits well within the teaching of United States v. Tucker, supra, as construed by this court in Lipscomb v. Clark, 5 Cir., 1972, 468 F. 2d 1321 ; and as extended to non-maximum sentence cases in Russo v. United States, 5 Cir., 1972, 470 F. 2d 1357 . The district court did not have the benefit of these decisions at the time judgment was entered. The case must be reconsidered on remand in light of these decisions and handled pursuant to the procedure outlined in Lipscomb v. Clark.
Vacated and remanded with direction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Farrow v. United States, 580 F.2d 1339 (9th Cir. 1978)
-
Brown v. United States, 483 F.2d 116 (4th Cir. 1973)
-
United States v. Gaither, 503 F.2d 452 (5th Cir. 1974)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1972)
- Lipscomb v. Clark, 468 F.2d 1321 (5th Cir. 1972)
- Russo v. The United States, 470 F.2d 1357 (5th Cir. 1972)