HORNBECK

v.

WILKINS, WARDEN; WALKER V. MCGINNIS, COMMISSIONER, ET AL.; ADAMES V. UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Edwards, 441 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1971)
  …[*750] It is well established that neither the evidence found in an illegal search, nor the knowledge acquired from such a search, can be used legally in enforcing the law. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961), reh. den., 368 U.S. 871, 82 S.Ct. 23, 7 L.Ed.2d 72; Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920). Since 1914, the Supreme Court has held that such evidence obtained by federal officers cannot be used in federal courts, Weeks v.…
• Natividad Baca v. United States, 383 F.2d 154 (10th Cir. 1967)
  …e judgment and commitment may and should be used to clarify the actual intention of the sentencing judge. Payne v. Madigan, 274 F. 2d 702, 705 (9 CA 1960) affm’d. by equally divided court, 366 U.S. 761, 81 S.Ct. 1670, 6 L.Ed.2d 853, rehearing denied 368 U.S. 871, 82 S.Ct. 23, 7 L.Ed.2d 72. The defect which pervades the general sentence is its ambiguity, see Benson v. United States, supra, and where the sentencing court attempts to eliminate the uncertainty of a general sentence by imposing specific sentence…
• Byrd v. United States, 345 F.2d 481 (10th Cir. 1965)
  …rm.” Written judgments and commitments may properly be used to resolve ambiguities in orally pronounced sentences. Payne v. Madigan, 274 F. 2d 702 (9th Cir.), aff’d. by equally divided Court 366 U.S. 761, 81 S.Ct. 1670, 6 L.Ed.2d 853, rehearing den. 368 U.S. 871, 82 S.Ct. 22, 7 L.Ed.2d 72. That the written order of judgment and commitment in this case reflects the intent of the trial judge is reinforced by the fact that the written order was signed on the same day that sentence was pronounced orally. Payne…