Gannon v. United States, 11918.
| Decision Date | 15 December 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 11918.,11918. |
| Citation | 208 F.2d 772 |
| Parties | GANNON v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Paul L. Westerfield, Cincinnati, Ohio, Thomas H. Gannon, in pro. per. on the brief for appellant.
Marcus L. Friedman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Toledo, Ohio, for appellee.
Before MARTIN, McALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
On January 23, 1952, an Information was filed by the United States against the appellant, Thomas H. Gannon and his wife, Marie Gannon, charging them with illegal possession of narcotic drugs, in violation of Section 2553(a), Title 26 U.S.Code.
Upon arraignment, appellant, who was an addict and not a peddler, signed a waiver of indictment, and in answer to the Court's inquiry if he desired an attorney he replied: He thereupon pleaded guilty to the charge.
Immediately thereafter, the Assistant District Attorney stated to the Court that he desired to file an Information under the Boggs Act, which would show previous convictions of the appellant under the narcotic laws. Under Section 2557(b), (1), Title 26 U.S.Code, referred to as the Boggs Act, a defendant who has been previously convicted of violations of the narcotic laws of the United States shall in the case of one previous conviction be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than ten years or both, and in the case of two such previous convictions shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than twenty years or both. The Act makes it the duty of the U. S. District Attorney following the new conviction to file an Information setting up such previous convictions, with the right in the defendant to a trial by jury as to the truth thereof. If the defendant acknowledges in open court, after being duly cautioned as to his rights, that he is the person previously convicted as charged in the Information, he shall be punished as prescribed by the Act.
The Information which was thereupon filed by the Assistant District Attorney contained four counts, each alleging a prior conviction of the appellant under the narcotic laws. The Assistant District Attorney read the charges to the Court and the appellant. The appellant asked permission to speak and stated: Following a discussion between the Court, the Assistant District Attorney and the appellant, about the previous offenses, the appellant again stated — The District Judge explained to the appellant that the Act made no distinction with respect to the nature of the prior offenses, whether the defendant was a peddler or merely an addict, that under the law he was required to give the prescribed sentence regardless of the fact that the appellant was merely an addict. The record contains an unsigned entry in longhand stating that the defendant admitted that he was the same person as that named in the Information. The District Judge imposed a sentence of five years....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Johnson
...316, 92 L.Ed. 309; Molignaro v. Smith (5th Cir.1969), 408 F.2d 795; Meadows v. Maxwell (6th Cir.1967), 371 F.2d 664; Gannon v. United States (6th Cir.1953), 208 F.2d 772.) In each of these cases, contrary to the instant case, the defendants both waived their right to counsel and, without be......
-
Spanbauer v. Burke
...as controlling are those which also indicate an actual and gross unfairness in the failure to apply the standard. See Gannon v. United States, 6 Cir., 208 F.2d 772 (1953); Sanders v. United States, supra; Snell v. United States, 10 Cir., 174 F.2d 580 Only a few federal courts have expressly......
-
United States v. Myers
...unless the defendant has been advised of the possibility of enhanced punishment based on his prior offenses. (Cf. Gannon v. United States (6th Cir. 1953) 208 F.2d 772; 8 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ Similarly, the impact of section 3568 upon the length of possible imprisonment is not contin......
-
State v. Johnston, s. 2046--I
...It seems clear that a defendant should be told of the possible added punishment under multiple offender statutes. See Gannon v. United States, 208 F.2d 772 (6th Cir. 1953). Because the judge, at the time he accepts the plea, will not know of the defendant's past record, it is necessary for ......