Whitworth v. United States

• Decision Date: 31 March 1902
• Docket Number: 1,631
• Citation: 114 F. 302
• Parties: WHITWORTH v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

114 F. 302

WHITWORTH v. UNITED STATES.

No. 1,631

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

March 31, 1902

Syllabus by the Court.

A circuit court of appeals has no jurisdiction to review or reverse the order of a district court in a criminal case denying a motion to set aside a judgment and to permit a defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty, where this motion presents no question of the jurisdiction or right of the district court to grant the motion, because such an order is not a final decision, and because such a motion does not present a question of law, but, like a motion for a new trial, is addressed to the discretion of the trial court.

In the national courts a judgment in a criminal case must conform strictly to the act of congress which authorizes it. Any departure from the statute in the extent or character of the punishment adjudged is a fatal error.

Section 974 of the Revised Statutes empowers a federal court to award that the defendant shall pay the costs of the prosecution when he is convicted of an offense not capital.

Where error is discovered in the proceedings in a criminal case properly presented to a circuit court of appeals for review it is empowered to enter such judgment and to impose such sentence as the law prescribes, or to reverse the judgment and direct the court below to take such further proceedings as the justice of the case may require.

This writ of error challenges the judgment and sentence of the plaintiff in error upon an indictment found in the district court for the Eastern district of Missouri on November 9 1900. The indictment contained two counts. The first charged the embezzlement of $236.06 of the money-order funds of the United States, under section 4046 of the Revised Statutes and the second charged the embezzlement of $16.96, under Act March 3, 1875 (18 Stat. 479, c. 144). The defendant, Whitworth, pleaded not guilty, and upon a trial the jury disagreed. Afterwards, and on May 10, 1901, he withdrew his plea of not guilty, and entered a plea of guilty, and thereupon the court sentenced him upon the first count to pay a fine of $236.06 and the costs of the prosecution of the cause, to stand committed until the fine and costs were paid, and to be confined in the penitentiary for three years, and on the second count of the indictment to be confined in the penitentiary at hard labor for one year and one day. On May 22, 1901, Whitworth made a motion to set aside this judgment against him, to withdraw his plea of guilty, and for a new trial, because he was induced to withdraw his plea of not guilty and to enter that of guilty by the promise of a post-office inspector, who was preparing the evidence for the prosecution, that, if he would do so, his sentence would not be more severe than a fine of $50. This motion was denied, and the judgment still stands.

Charles H. Brock (Simon S. Bass, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

Edward A. Rozier, for defendant in error.

Before CALDWELL, SANBORN, and THAYER, Circuit Judges.

SANBORN Circuit Judge, after stating the case as above.

The motion to set aside the judgment and to permit the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty because he had been induced to enter it by the promise of the inspector that he should not suffer a severe sentence was supported and opposed by affidavits. It was properly presented to the district court at the same term at which the judgment was rendered. It was in the nature of the old writ of error coram nobis to correct a mistake of fact, and the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and determine it. But its decision of this motion is not reviewable in this court for two reasons. In the first place, it is only the final judgments or decisions of the district courts in criminal cases that the act of congress empowers the circuit courts of appeals to review (Act March 3, 1891; 26 Stat.

828, c. 517 Sec. 6), and the only final decision or judgment in this case was the judgment which imposed the sentence upon the defendant. The order denying his subsequent motion was not a final decision or judgment. He may renew it at any time. In the second place, the authority of the courts of appeals to review the acts of the district courts in criminal cases is limited to the power to reverse or modify their judgments for errors of law. In criminal cases a circuit court of appeals is a court for the correction of errors of law exclusively, and the denial of the motion to set aside the judgment was not an error of law, whether it was right or wrong. The motion was addressed to the judicial discretion of the court below. There was no question of its jurisdiction, no question of its right to grant or refuse the motion, raised or involved in the hearing or decision of the motion. The only question presented was whether or not, in the exercise of a wise discretion, the motion ought to be granted. A perusal of the affidavits used upon the hearing shows that the district court committed no abuse of this discretion in denying the motion, and the result is that this court has no authority to review or reverse its order. A circuit court of appeals has no jurisdiction to review or reverse the order of a district court in a criminal case denying a motion to set aside a judgment and to permit a defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty, which presents no question of the jurisdiction or right of that court to grant the motion, because such an order is not a final decision, and because such a motion does not present a question of law, but is, like a motion for a new trial, addressed to the discretion of the trial court. Walden v. Craig, 9 Wheat. 576, 6 L.Ed. 164; Pickett's Heirs v. Legerwood, 7 Pet. 142, 149, 8 L.Ed. 638.

The penalty prescribed by section 4046, Rev. St., for the commission of the crime charged in the first count of the indictment was that the culprit should 'be imprisoned for not less than six months nor more than ten years, and be fined in a sum equal to the amount embezzled. ' The judgment against the defendant for this offense was that he should be imprisoned for three years; that he should pay a fine equal to the amount embezzled, and also the cost of ...