GRABINA
v.
UNITED STATES

U.S. | 1962-04-16
No. 851
Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
369 U.S. 426 Supreme Court of the United States (1962) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

In light of the concession by the Solicitor General and upon an examination of the entire record, the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for resentencing.

Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. Grabina, 309 F.2d 783 (2d Cir. 1962)
    …mber 15,-1961. The motion was denied without opinion. He then sought and obtained a writ of certiorari. On April 16, 1962, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the District Court for resentencing. Grabina v. United States, 369 U.S. 426, 82 S.Ct. 880, 8 L.Ed.2d 7. On May 24, 1962 Grabina was brought before Judge Bicks, was afforded allocution and was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment from May 10, 1960 on count 1 of the indictment. The imposition of sentence on count 2 was suspende…
  • Behrens v. United States, 312 F.2d 223 (7th Cir. 1962)
    …ixth Amendment. A sentencing, even to probation, is admittedly invalid in the defendant’s absence. Pollard v. United States, 352 U.S. 354, 360, 77 S.Ct. 481, 1 L.Ed.2d 393. The Solicitor General in a memorandum submitted in Grabina v. United States, 369 U.S. 426, 82 S.Ct. 880, 8 L.Ed.2d 7 conceded that absence of a defendant at the time of sentencing was “fundamental error” and under such circumstances “there are basic infirmities in the sentence”.2 Cf. Ellis v. Ellisor, 5 Cir., 239 F. 2d 175; Wilfong v. Jo…
  • United States v. Johnson, 315 F.2d 714 (2d Cir. 1963)
    …d purpose of § 4208(b) is to enable the court to obtain such detailed information as may aid it in determining the actual sentence to be imposed.” Behrens v. United States, 312 F. 2d 223, 226 (7 Cir. 1962); see also: Grabina v. United [*717] States, 369 U.S. 426, 82 S.Ct. 880, 8 L.Ed.2d 7 (1962). Since the final terms of sentence were not fixed until the proceeding on January 4th, the defendant had a right to be present at that time. There is nothing to the contrary in § 4208(b). Although there is a referen…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw