Ray v. United States
| Decision Date | 06 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 20855.,20855. |
| Citation | 372 F.2d 80 |
| Parties | Lawrence H. RAY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Thomas J. Davis, Tucson, Ariz., for appellant.
William P. Copple, U. S. Atty., Jo Ann D. Diamos, Asst. U. S. Atty., Tucson, Ariz., for appellee.
Before HAMLIN, JERTBERG and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges.
Following trial to a jury, appellant was convicted on all counts of an eight count indictment. Counts I, II, III and VII, charged violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a) (4).1 Counts IV, V, VI, and VIII, charged violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a) (2).2
The alien referred to in Counts I and IV is Antonio Valenzuela-Lopez; the alien referred to in Counts II and V is Celedonio Martinez-Dorame; the alien referred to in Counts III and VI is Carmen Chavez-Franco; and the alien referred to in Counts VII and VIII is Jose Romero-Siquero.
The judgment and commitment of the District Court, after reciting that appellant had been convicted by jury verdicts as charged in each of the eight counts, committed the appellant to the custody of the Attorney General, or his authorized representative, for "imprisonment for a period of eighteen months."
On this appeal the only errors specified in appellant's brief are the claimed error of the District Court in failing to grant the defendant's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on Counts I, II and III at the close of the government's case; and claimed error of the District Court in giving one instruction to which appellant objected, and refusing to give two instructions which appellant requested. Because of the factual situation which developed under Counts I through VI, and which was not present under Counts VII and VIII, the instructions were relevant only under Counts I through VI.
In his brief appellant seeks reversal only in respect to the first six counts.
No attack is made in appellant's brief with respect to his conviction on Counts VII and VIII. On oral argument counsel for appellant conceded that there were no infirmities or errors in appellant's conviction on Counts VII and VIII.
We have reviewed the record and are likewise convinced that the evidence introduced before the jury in the District Court abundantly supports appellant's conviction on Counts VII and VIII, and that the claimed errors in respect to the first six counts in no way infect or contaminate the conviction of appellant upon Counts VII and VIII.
We note that the sentence imposed by the District Court on all counts of the indictment falls far short of the maximum sentence which the District Court was authorized to impose on each count of the indictment.
In Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 79 S.Ct. 1081, 3 L.Ed.2d 1115 (1959), Barenblatt was convicted under all counts of a five count indictment. A general sentence of six months imprisonment and a fine of $250.00 was imposed. At page 115, 79 S.Ct. page 1087 the Supreme Court stated:
"Since this sentence was less than the maximum punishment authorized by the statute for conviction under any one Count, the judgment below must be upheld if the conviction upon any of the Counts is sustainable." (Footnote omitted).
See also to the same effect, United States v. Mims, 340 F.2d 851 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 913, 85 S.Ct. 1535, 14 L.Ed.2d 434 (1965); Isaacs v. United States, 301 F.2d 706 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 818, 83 S.Ct. 32, 9 L.Ed.2d 58 (1962).
In the instant case the validity of appellant's conviction on Counts VII and VIII is unquestioned by appellant. We are satisfied of the validity of such conviction in all respects. In these circumstances it is unnecessary for us to consider the errors alleged by appellant in respect to his conviction on the first six counts of the indictment.
The only problem remaining in this case arises from the imposition by the District Court of a "general sentence" on all counts. The problem is whether we should affirm the judgment imposing the general sentence, or remand the cause to the District Court for resentencing on each count.
When the District Court imposes sentence on a multiple count indictment, it is highly desirable that he deal separately with each count. See Benson v. United States, 332 F.2d 288 (5th Cir. 1964).
In ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peoples v. United States
...been repeatedly upheld, it has often been criticized as a loose, undesirable practice definitely to be discouraged. Ray v. United States, 372 F.2d 80, 83 (9th Cir. 1967); Benson v. United States, 332 F. 2d 288, 291 (5th Cir. 1964);3 Johnson v. United States, 276 F.2d 84, 90 (4th Cir. 1960);......
-
U.S. v. Batimana
...sentences for each count of a multiple count indictment. See Lee v. United States, 400 F.2d 185, 187 (9th Cir. 1968); Ray v. United States, 372 F.2d 80, 83 (9th Cir. 1967); McDowell v. Swope, 183 F.2d 856, 858 (9th Cir. 1950). Such a sentence will be upheld, however, if the conviction is su......
-
Lee v. United States, 22391.
...Circuit and elsewhere as a practice "definitely to be discouraged." McDowell v. Swope, 9th Cir. 1950, 183 F.2d 856. Cf. Ray v. United States, 9th Cir. 1967, 372 F.2d 80. And in 1964, the Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit, on which Judge Walter Pope of the Ninth Circuit was then sitting ......
-
State v. Hancock
...a 'general sentence'. See Annot. 91 ALR2d 511 (1963). The majority rule is that such a general sentence is permissible. Ray v. United States, 372 F.2d 80 (9th Cir. 1967); Johnson v. United States, 276 F.2d 84 (4th Cir. 1960); Vandegrift v. State, 226 Md. 38, 171 A.2d 173 (1961); Annot. 91 A......