17 F.2d 570 (8th Cir. 1927), 7436, Roark v. United States

Docket Nº:7436.
Citation:17 F.2d 570
Party Name:ROARK v. UNITED STATES.
Case Date:January 31, 1927
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 570

17 F.2d 570 (8th Cir. 1927)

ROARK

v.

UNITED STATES.

No. 7436.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

January 31, 1927

Kenyon, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Colorado.

Criminal prosecution by the United States against Ammon Frank Roarck. Judgment of conviction, and defendant brings error. Affirmed in part, and reversed in part.

Page 571

Ammon Frank Roarck, in pro. per.

Roy H. Blackman, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Denver, Colo. (George Stephan, U.S. Atty., of Denver, Colo., on the brief), for the United States.

Before KENYON, Circuit Judge, and SCOTT and JOHN B. SANBORN, District judges.

JOHN B. SANBORN, District Judge.

The plaintiff in error, defendant in the court below, challenges the legality of the sentences pronounced against him upon his plea of guilty to an indictment charging him with four violations of the White Slave Traffic Act (June 25, 1910, c. 395, 36 Stat. 825 (Comp. St. Secs. 8812-8819)). He was charged, under the first count, with having, on November 20, 1925, caused a woman to be transported in interstate commerce by common carrier from El Paso, Tex., to Denver, Colo., with intent to induce her to engage in illicit intercourse with him; under the second count, with having on the same day persuaded and induced the same woman to go in interstate commerce to Denver to engage in illicit intercourse with him; under the third count, with having on the same day caused the same woman to go in interstate commerce to Denver with the intent of inducing her to engage in prostitution; and, under the fourth count, with having on the same day persuaded and induced her to go in interstate commerce to Denver, with intent to induce her to engage in prostitution.

The defendant was sentenced to five years' imprisonment and to pay a fine of $1,000 under the first count; to five years' imprisonment under the second count, to run concurrently with the sentence under the first; to five years' imprisonment and to pay a fine of $1,000 under the third count; and to five years' imprisonment under the fourth count, to run concurrently with the sentence under the third count. In other words, he was given a five-year sentence and a $1,000 fine under the first two counts, and a five-year sentence and a similar fine under the last two counts-- a ten-year sentence of imprisonment all together and fines aggregating $2,000. His contention is that all four counts of the indictment charged but one offense, and that the maximum sentence of imprisonment was five years.

From the indictment it appears that each count relates to the same day, the same place, the same transportation in interstate commerce, and the same woman. The question presented, then, is whether one crime is variously charged under four separate counts, or whether distinct crimes are charged. Section 2 of the act (Comp. St. Sec. 8813) makes any person who knowingly transports or causes to be transported in interstate commerce any woman or girl for the purposes of prostitution of debauchery or any other immoral purpose guilty of a crime. Section 3 (Comp. St. Sec. 8814) makes any person who knowingly persuades or assists in persuading any woman or girl to go in interstate commerce for like immoral purposes guilty of a crime.

That the transportation of the same woman has been frequently charged in an indictment under various counts, as in this case, is evident. In Hays v. United States (C.C.A.) 231 F. 106, and 242 U.S. 470, 37 S.Ct. 192, 61 L.Ed. 442, L.R.A. 1917F, 502, Ann Cas. 1917B, 1168, the defendant was charged with inducing a woman to go in interstate commerce and procuring transportation for her, and, under a second count, with having induced her to go in such commerce. He was convicted on both counts. In Diggs v. United States, 37 S.Ct. 192, 61 L.Ed. 442, L.R.A. 1917F, 502, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 1168, covered by the same opinion...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP