Thomas v. United States, 14249.
Decision Date | 17 April 1951 |
Docket Number | No. 14249.,14249. |
Parties | THOMAS v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Charles C. Allen, III, St. Louis, Mo., appointed by the Court (Lehmann & Allen, St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for appellant.
William J. Costello, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo. (Drake Watson, U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for appellee.
Before SANBORN, WOODROUGH, and JOHNSEN, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court entered October 18, 1950, overruling a motion of the appellant to vacate two sentences of imprisonment which the court imposed on April 16, 1942. The sentences were based upon the appellant's conviction under two indictments, returned December 17, 1941, and March 13, 1942, charging him with two separate attempts to escape from federal custody. He contends that the indictments were fatally defective and that the court was therefore without jurisdiction to impose the sentences.
The appellant has, apparently, on five previous occasions unsuccessfully attacked the legality of these same sentences. He asserts, however, that his previous motions and petitions were not based upon the same grounds as his present motion. For the purposes of this appeal, we shall assume, without deciding, that the challenged sentences still lack complete finality after having survived repeated attacks for more than eight years.
The appellant has adopted the statement of facts which appears in the appellee's brief. The statement reads as follows:
The indictments charging attempts to escape were based on Section 753h of Title 18 U.S.C. 1948 Revised Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C.A. § 751, as it existed when the indictments were returned. That section made it an offense for any person in custody by virtue of any process issued under the laws of the United States by any court, judge, or commissioner, to escape or attempt to escape from such custody. Each of the indictments under attack alleged that the appellant, while held in federal custody in the jail of Cape Girardeau County, Missouri, "did wilfully, unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously attempt to escape from the custody of the * * * United States Marshal and from the custody of the keeper of the said Cape Girardeau County Jail * * *." While each of the indictments conforms to the language of the applicable statute, it is contended that, where an attempt to escape is charged, such an indictment is void unless the acts constituting the attempt are specified.
The precise question before us is not whether these indictments could have been successfully challenged at or before trial, but whether, after trial, conviction and sentence, they must be held to be so defective as to require the vacation of the sentences imposed upon the appellant.
Counsel appointed by this Court, who has ably represented the appellant, calls our attention to two federal cases which hold that an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Keto v. United States
...v. Bent, 8 Cir., 175 F.2d 397, certiorari denied 338 U.S. 829, 70 S.Ct. 79, rehearing denied 338 U.S. 896, 70 S.Ct. 238; Thomas v. United States, 8 Cir., 188 F.2d 6. It seems advisable to state as definitely as possible the rule which precludes a defendant, after conviction, from attacking ......
-
John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Munn
... ... LIFE INS. CO. OF BOSTON, MASS ... MUNN et al ... No. 14242 ... United" States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit ... April 19, 1951.188 F.2d 2 \xC2" ... ...
-
Wheeler v. United States, 17111.
...Kansas City, Missouri Post Office, located at 5744 Prospect; * * *." 175 F.2d at 398. 3 175 F.2d at 400-401. See also Thomas v. United States, 8 Cir., 1951, 188 F.2d 6. 4 110 F.2d at 6. 5 110 F.2d at 5-6. See also Smith v. United States, 1959, 360 U.S. 1, 9, 79 S. Ct. 991, 3 L.Ed.2d 1041. 6......
-
Alm v. United States, 15629.
...certiorari denied 338 U.S. 829, 70 S.Ct. 79, 94 L.Ed. 504, rehearing denied 338 U.S. 896, 70 S.Ct. 238, 94 L.Ed. 551; Thomas v. United States, 8 Cir., 188 F.2d 6, 8. If Alm, at the time of his arraignment, was in any doubt as to the identity of the stolen automobile he was charged with havi......