Banghart v. United States, 5351.
| Decision Date | 18 June 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 5351.,5351. |
| Citation | 148 F.2d 521 |
| Parties | BANGHART et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Basil Banghart, appellant in pro. per.
Ludwig Schmidt, appellant in pro. per., on the brief.
Irving S. Shapiro, Atty., Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C. (Tom C. Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., Theron L. Caudle, U. S. Atty., of Charlotte, N. C., and Robert S. Erdahl, Atty., Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, SOPER, and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
Writ of Certiorari Denied June 18, 1945. See 65 S.Ct. 1568.
This is an appeal by Basil Banghart and Ludwig Schmidt from the denial of a motion to strike out sentences imposed upon them under counts 3, 4 and 12 of a twelve count indictment, they having been convicted on all counts of the indictment. Count 2 charged a robbery of the mail with a putting in jeopardy of the life of the custodian; and under that count both Banghart and Schmidt were sentenced to terms of 25 years. Counts 3 and 4 charged injury to mail bags with intent to steal the mail and count 12 charged conspiracy to rob the mail. Banghart was given a two year sentence under each of these counts, and Schmidt a two year sentence under count twelve, the sentences to run consecutively. Their contention is that the crimes charged under counts 3, 4 and 12 were parts of the same crime for which they were given the 25 year sentence under count 2, and that, consequently, additional sentences under those counts are void as constituting double jeopardy.
We think that there is no merit whatever in the contentions of appellants. It is well settled that conspiracy to commit a crime is a separate and distinct offense from the crime which is the object of the conspiracy and may be separately punished. United States v. Rabinowich, 238 U.S. 78, 35 S.Ct. 682, 59 L.Ed. 1211; Heike v. United States, 227 U.S. 131, 33 S. Ct. 226, 57 L.Ed. 450; Old Monastery Co. v. United States, 4 Cir., 147 F.2d 905; Short v. United States, 4 Cir. 91 F.2d 614, 621, 112 A.L.R. 969; Lisansky v. United States, 4 Cir., 31 F.2d 846, 67 A.L.R. 67. Likewise, the crime of cutting or injuring a mail bag with intent to steal the mail denounced by sec. 189 of the Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C.A. § 312, is a different offense and involves different elements from the crime of robbery denounced by sec. 197, 18 U.S.C.A. § 320. To make out the offense, injury to the bag must...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. of America v. Carl Sutton, Jr., Joseph Spinoza Elkins, Dyeatra Ann Carter, Edwin Arthur Adams, Otis Hensley, Prince Albert Rankin, Samuel Lee Harris, Charles Edward Craven, Viola Holmes.
...to the importance of punishing it when discovered." And see Sneed v. United States, 298 F. 911, 912-913 (5th Cir.); Banghart v. United States, 148 F.2d 521 (4th Cir.). Moreover, it is not material that overt acts charged in the conspiracy counts were also charged and proved as substantive o......
-
Pinkerton v. United States
...adding to the importance of punishing it when discovered.' And see Sneed v. United States, 5 Cir., 298 F. 911, 912, 913; Banghart v. United States, 4 Cir., 148 F.2d 521. Moreover, it is not material that overt acts charged in the conspiracy counts were also charged and proved as substantive......
-
Frankfeld v. United States
...be conviction both of conspiracy to commit a crime and of the substantive offense which is the object of the conspiracy. Banghart v. United States, 4 Cir., 148 F.2d 521 and cases there cited. A contention very similar to that made here was made in the case of Lisansky v. United States, 4 Ci......
-
State v. Handsome, 116
...293 N.C. 263, 237 S.E.2d 834 (1977); see, State v. Fulcher, 294 N.C. 503, 243 S.E.2d 338 (1978); see also, Banghart v. United States, 148 F.2d 521 (4th Cir. 1945) (per curiam), cert. denied, 325 U.S. 887, 65 S.Ct. 1568, 89 L.Ed. 2001 (1945). Thus, there is no violation of the Double Jeopard......