JOHNSON

v.

CALIFORNIA

Citator

Cited By

• Slawek v. United States, 413 F.2d 957 (8th Cir. 1969)
  …cert. denied, 382 U.S. 881, 86 S. Ct. 170, 15 L.Ed.2d 121; Butler v. Unit [*960] ed States, 340 F. 2d 63, 64 (8 Cir.1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 847, 86 S.Ct. 92, 15 L.Ed.2d 87; Baca v. United States, 383 F. 2d 154, 156 (10 Cir.1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 929, 88 S.Ct. 868, 19 L.Ed.2d 994; Bearden v. United States, 403 F. 2d 782, 784 (5 Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1111, 89 S.Ct. 920, 21 L.Ed.2d 808. While Slawek concedes that review of this point was made on direct appeal, he says that this “is mi…
• United States v. Mason, 440 F.2d 1293 (10th Cir. 1971)
  …5); Brasier v. United States, 229 F. 2d 176 (10th Cir. 1955). Where a conflict is presented between the oral and the written sentence and commitment, the former gov- [*1300] eras. Baca v. United States, 383 F. 2d 154 (10th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 929, 88 S.Ct. 868, 19 L.Ed.2d 994; United States v. Morse, 344 F. 2d 27 (4th Cir. 1965); Cuozzo v. United States, 340 F. 2d 303 (5th Cir. 1965); Henley v. Heritage, 337 F. 2d 847 (5th Cir. 1964). See also Gilliam v. United States, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 103…
• United States v. Paul C. "Paulie" Villano, 816 F.2d 1448 (10th Cir. 1987)
  …since the 1930’s.2 When an orally pronounced sentence is ambiguous, however, the judgment and commitment order is evidence which may be used to determine the intended sentence. Baca v. United States, 383 F. 2d 154, 157 (10th Cir.1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 929, 88 S.Ct. 868, 19 L.Ed.2d 994 (1968). This is the purpose of the written order: to help clarify an ambiguous oral sentence by providing evidence of what was said from the bench. Walden v. Hudspeth, 115 F. 2d 558, 559 (10th Cir.1940); Baca, 383 F. 2d…

  ← 1 / 3 →