Byrnes v. United States, 22472.

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: JERTBERG and DUNIWAY, Circuit , and TAYLOR
• Citation: 408 F.2d 599
• Parties: Jerome BYRNES, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Docket Number: No. 22472.,22472.
• Decision Date: 23 June 1969

408 F.2d 599 (1969)

Jerome BYRNES, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 22472.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

March 5, 1969.

Certiorari Denied June 23, 1969.

408 F.2d 600

Jerome Byrnes, (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

Gerald F. Ulemen (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Wm. M. Byrne, Jr., U. S. Atty., Robert L. Brosion, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before JERTBERG and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges, and TAYLOR^*, District Judge.

Certiorari Denied June 23, 1969. See 89 S.Ct. 2142.

FRED M. TAYLOR, District Judge:

The appellant, formerly an investigator in the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Internal Revenue Service, was convicted on January 31, 1963, on Counts One through Five and Count Seven of an Indictment charging violations of Title 18 U.S.C. § 872 and § 202. The offenses involved were attempts to extort money from one W. David Tallmadge who was being investigated by appellant. A sentence of eighteen months was imposed on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant has long since served the sentences so imposed.

The conviction of appellant was the result of a third trial, the first trial resulting in a jury verdict of guilty and a new trial being granted by the trial judge. On the second trial the jury failed to agree on a verdict. After his conviction, appellant moved for a new trial which was denied and on appeal to this court the conviction was affirmed. Byrnes v. United States, 327 F.2d 825 (1964). The Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari, 377 U.S. 970, 84 S.Ct. 1652, 12 L. Ed.2d 739 (1964). While serving his sentence, appellant moved for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The judgment of the trial court denying the motion was affirmed by this court. Byrnes v. United States, 348 F.2d 918 (1965) and certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court, 382 U.S. 997, 86 S.Ct. 584, 15 L.Ed.2d 484 (1966).

408 F.2d 601

On August 23, 1967, appellant filed a motion to vacate, set aside and void the sentence under and pursuant to Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, or in the alternative sought relief in the form of a writ of error coram nobis. The trial court correctly concluded that Rule 35 was not applicable. It is well settled that the function of Rule 35 is to permit the correction at any time of an illegal sentence and not to examine errors occurring at the trial or other proceedings prior to the imposition of sentence. Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 430, 82 S.Ct. 468, 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962); Redfield v. United States, 315 F.2d 76, 81 (9th Cir. 1963); United States v. Lewis, 392 F.2d 440, 442 (4th Cir. 1968). The trial court held that the motion was in the nature of a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. Jurisdiction of the court below was asserted under the "All Writs Statute", 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Appellee made and filed a motion to dismiss appellant's motion to vacate, set aside and void illegal sentence upon the following grounds:

"(1) The Petitioner\'s sentence was not an `illegal sentence\' within the meaning of Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

"(2) The Court lacks jurisdiction to construe Petitioner\'s Motion as a Motion for New Trial, pursuant to Rule 33, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

"(3) Petitioner is not entitled to relief under the extraordinary writ of error coram nobis.

"(4) The Petition presents no substantive grounds upon which relief could be granted."

The trial court held hearings on October 2, 23 and 24, 1967 and after considering the evidence produced at the hearings made and entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order on November 6, 1967....