Billingsley v. United States
| Decision Date | 05 March 1918 |
| Docket Number | 3022-3024. |
| Citation | 249 F. 331 |
| Parties | BILLINGSLEY et al. v. UNITED STATES (two cases). BILLINGSLEY v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Rehearing Denied May 13, 1918.
Bell & Hodge, of Seattle, Wash., for plaintiffs in error.
Clay Allen, U.S. Atty., of Seattle, Wash., and Clarence L. Reames U.S. Atty., of Portland, Or.
Before GILBERT and HUNT, Circuit Judges, and WOLVERTON, District judge.
The three above-entitled cases, in which the Billingsleys, one or both, were defendants below, may be considered together. In the first, Logan and Fred Billingsley were charged with conspiracy to violate section 238 of the Penal Code (Comp St. 1916, Sec. 10408). Both pleaded guilty. In the second, Logan Billingsley, with others, was charged in two counts with conspiracy to violate the act of Congress approved February 4, 1887 (24 Stat. 379, c. 104), entitled 'An act to regulate commerce.' Billingsley pleaded guilty to count 1 of the indictment. In the third, the Billingsleys were indicted by three counts. In two of the counts they were charged with conspiracy to violate section 238 of the Penal Code, and in the other count with conspiracy to violate the act to regulate commerce. Both these defendants pleaded guilty to all three of the counts. Subsequently the Billingsleys moved the court for leave to withdraw their pleas of guilty, and to be permitted to enter pleas of not guilty. The motion in each case was denied, and exceptions were saved. A writ of error in each case is now prosecuted to this court, on the grounds, first, that the court committed error in denying the motion for leave to withdraw the pleas of not guilty; and, second, that the indictment does not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense against the government.
As to the first assignment of error, the law is settled in this court contrary to defendants' contention. Andrews v. United States, 224 F. 418, 139 C.C.A. 646. The matter of granting leave to withdraw the pleas of guilty was one discretionary with the trial court, and is not reviewable. It may be added here, however, that the record shows nothing but the bare motions for leave to withdraw the pleas of guilty. There were no affidavits filed, nor other showing made, in support of them, and there is absolutely nothing here to indicate in the smallest particular that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motions. The assignment of error is therefore wholly without merit.
As it respects the sufficiency of the indictments, it is urged that they are defective, as related to the alleged conspiracy to violate section 238 of the Penal Code, because they do not show, nor attempt to show, that the defendants were, or at any time had been, officers, agents, or employes of any railroad company, or other common carrier, engaged in interstate commerce.
Section 238 denounces the act of any officer, agent, or employe of any railroad company, express company, or common carrier in doing the things there interdicted. The thought must not be lost sight...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jonagan
...trial court. Where that discretion has not been abused the appellate court will not reverse. Duncan v. State, 187 S.W. 906; Billingsley v. United States, 249 F. 331; v. State, 262 S.W. 987 State v. Yates. 52 Kan. 566. Railey, C. Higbee, C., concurs. OPINION RAILEY The defendant plead guilty......
-
Spirou v. United States
... ... The order entered November 30th, denying the motion, is, therefore, not before us for review. It may be doubted whether such an order is ever reviewable (Whitworth v. United States, 114 F. 302 C. C. A. 8; Billingsley v. United States, 249 F. 331 C. C. A. 9), but, if it be, and the order were properly before us, we should not hesitate to approve the discretion exercised by the court in denying the motion ... The sentence imposed upon Spirou was three years on counts 1 to 8, to run concurrently; ... ...
-
Morei v. United States
...as aiders and abettors, or accessories. Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, supra; Hume v. United States, 5 Cir., 118 F. 689; Billingsley v. United States, 9 Cir., 249 F. 331; Colbeck v. United States, 7 Cir., 10 F.2d 401; Cook v. United States, 8 Cir., 28 F.2d Of the charge that he was guilty o......
-
Ex parte Jones, 1518.
...by doing one or more overt acts to effectuate the purpose, although the crime itself be not actually committed. Billingsley v. United States, 9 Cir., 249 F. 331, certiorari denied 247 U.S. 523, 38 S.Ct 583, 62 L.Ed. 1247; Thompson v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 94 F.2d 355; Troutman v. United States,......