Fine v. United States, 5060.
| Citation | 67 F.2d 591 |
| Decision Date | 14 December 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 5060.,5060. |
| Parties | FINE v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
Before EVANS, SPARKS, and FITZ HENRY, Circuit Judges.
Edward T. Lee, Guy Guernsey, and Laurence M. Fine, all of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Dwight H. Green, U. S. Atty., and Joseph A. Struett, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Chicago, Ill.
SPARKS, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
Appellant bases his appeal largely on the ground of the alleged right of the trial court to correct its mistake at any time that mistake is discovered, whether it be before or after the expiration of the term at which the judgment is entered. It is obvious that the exercise of such a right depends upon the occurrence of a mistake. However, under the facts presented in this case, we are convinced that no such mistake did occur. The trial court considered what purported to be newly discovered evidence after its judgment had been rendered, and decided that such evidence did not warrant a reversal of that judgment. On appeal based on the question of the sufficiency of the evidence, this court decided that there was ample evidence to support the judgment. Upon a reconsideration of the circumstances, the trial court apparently decided that they justified suspending the sentence and placing the defendant on probation. Thereafter disbarment proceedings were commenced before the Supreme Court of Illinois on the ground of the conviction in the federal court. It was then that appellant again appeared before the trial court and prayed the vacating of the original sentence which was allowed perhaps on the theory that disbarment was excessive punishment for the acts committed by him.
Appellant argues that because of the fact that he is an attorney at law, the conviction carries with it a punishment never contemplated by the statute involved, namely, disbarment from the privilege of practicing his profession. However, such action is not considered in the nature of a punishment. The Supreme Court of the state of Illinois has laid down certain rules of conduct for persons to whom it extends the privilege of practicing law in that state, and has ruled that certain facts, among them, conviction of a crime, shall constitute grounds for disbarment. In so holding it has not been its intention to increase the punishment for whatever crime may have been involved, but only to maintain its own standards of fitness for the profession. The fact of conviction has simply been fixed as a criterion of unfitness. That such a result will follow conviction we think should not be considered by the trial court in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused, but its judgment should be arrived at solely on the basis of the facts brought forward during the proceedings.
Apart from the fact that we are convinced that no mistake occurred in the original proceedings, we are also convinced that even if a mistake had occurred, it would not have been of such a character as to confer jurisdiction upon the trial court to vacate its original judgment after the expiration of the term at which that judgment was entered. Appellant argues the analogy of the writ of coram nobis which enabled the court to correct its errors...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilmore v. United States
...81 A.L.R. 300; Pattison v. United States, 9 Cir., 2 F.2d 14, 15; Hynes v. United States, 7 Cir., 35 F.2d 734, 735; Fine v. United States, 7 Cir., 67 F.2d 591, 592, 593, certiorari denied 292 U.S. 622, 54 S.Ct. 632, 78 L.Ed. 1478; United States v. Capone, 7 Cir., 93 F.2d 840, 841, certiorari......
-
Moody v. U.S., 88-8333
...Kelly v. United States, 138 F.2d 489 (9th Cir.1943); United States v. Gardzielewski, 135 F.2d 271 (7th Cir.1943); Fine v. United States, 67 F.2d 591 (7th Cir.1935). But cf., Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d 591 (9th Cir.1987); United States v. Scherer, 673 F.2d 176 (7th Cir.1982); Uni......
-
United States v. Capone, 6372.
...55, 35 S.Ct. 16, 59 L.Ed. 129; Needham v. U. S., 7 Cir., 89 F.2d 72; In re Potts, 166 U.S. 263, 17 S.Ct. 520, 41 L.Ed. 994; Fine v. U. S., 7 Cir., 67 F.2d 591. The exceptions to proposition (c) are predicated on facts which do not exist in the instant case for there has been neither a mista......
-
Gargano v. United States, 10539.
...28 U.S.C.A. § 225(a). 2 Audette v. United States, 9 Cir., 99 F. 2d 113; Kelly v. United States, 9 Cir., 138 F.2d 489; Fine v. United States, 7 Cir., 67 F.2d 591; United States v. Harrison, 2 Cir., 99 F.2d 1017; Gilmore v. United States, 10 Cir., 124 F.2d 537; United States ex rel. Coy v. Un......