524 F.2d 1103 (2nd Cir. 1975), 1136, United States v. Hermann

Docket Nº:1136, Docket 75-1059.
Citation:524 F.2d 1103
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Thomas Joseph HERMANN, Defendant-Appellant.
Case Date:October 16, 1975
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Page 1103

524 F.2d 1103 (2nd Cir. 1975)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,


Thomas Joseph HERMANN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1136, Docket 75-1059.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

October 16, 1975

Argued July 15, 1975.

Alan Neigher, Bridgeport, Conn., for defendant-appellant.

Peter C. Dorsey, U. S. Atty., District of Connecticut (Peter A. Clark, Asst. U. S. Atty., of counsel), for appellee.



This is an appeal from an order denying appellant's motion to vacate the sentence for armed bank robbery imposed upon him by Chief Judge Clarie of the United States District Court for the District

Page 1104

of Connecticut. When appellant appeared for sentencing on September 27, 1971, his counsel requested Judge Clarie to "consider very seriously" the same eleven-year sentence that appellant's accomplice had already received. Although Judge Clarie had in mind a longer term, he did sentence appellant to eleven years. Appellant now advances several reasons why this sentence should be vacated.

He contends first that the District Court, in assessing sentence, improperly considered two prior convictions which were constitutionally invalid under Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963), because, at the time of these convictions he was not represented by counsel. Assuming that such invalidity existed, appellant was entitled to ascertain, as he did, whether the challenged convictions had any effect on the length of his sentence. The District Court's finding that they had no effect, coupled with the similarity in the sentences of the two accomplices, ends the matter. Ferranto v. United States, 507 F.2d 408 (2d Cir. 1974); Wilsey v. United States, 496 F.2d 619 (2d Cir. 1974).

Appellant also complains of certain alleged inaccuracies in his pre-sentence report which he suspects may have adversely influenced the Judge. During the course of appellant's sentencing, and his subsequent motions to modify and to vacate his sentence, his counsel had ample opportunity to discuss and explain these inaccuracies. Judge Clarie, nonetheless, adhered consistently to his opinion that the sentence was "fair and just." We see no errors or improprieties which require reversal. Manley v. United States,432 F.2d 1241 (2d Cir. 1970); United States v. Carden...

To continue reading