Godwin v. United States, 14396.
| Decision Date | 14 November 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 14396.,14396. |
| Parties | GODWIN v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Bert B. Larey, Texarkana, Ark., for appellant.
R. S. Wilson, U. S. Atty., and Charles A. Beasley, Jr. and Hugh M. Bland, Asst. U. S. Attys., Fort Smith, Ark., for appellee.
Before GARDNER, Chief Judge, and WOODROUGH and RIDDICK, Circuit Judges.
Sherman Albert Godwin was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a year and a day upon a verdict of a jury which found him guilty of having escaped from the Miller County, Arkansas, jail. His motion in arrest of judgment was overruled and he appealed to this court. The order denying the motion was affirmed. In its opinion this court said: "At the time of his escape, the defendant Godwin was a federal prisoner in custody by virtue of process issued under the laws of the United States within the meaning of Sec. 751, Title 18 U.S.C.A." 185 F.2d 411, 413.
The present appeal is from an order of the District Court in which Godwin was convicted, denying his motion pursuant to Sec. 2255, Title 28 U.S.C., to vacate the judgment of conviction. In the District Court Godwin contended that the court was without jurisdiction to impose the sentence which he received and that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law. His contention was that at the time of his escape he was being held for extradition, and that under Sec. 751, Title 18 U.S.C., he was guilty of a misdemeanor and not of a felony of which he was convicted. The District Court found that the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively showed that appellant was entitled to no relief. The motion was denied without a hearing.
Sec. 751 of Title 18 U.S.C., for the violation of which Godwin was convicted, so far as material here, provides: "Whoever escapes * * * from any custody under or by virtue of any process issued under the laws of the United States by any court, judge, or commissioner * * * shall, if the custody or confinement is by virtue of an arrest on a charge of felony, or conviction of any offense, be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; or if the custody or confinement is for extradition or by virtue of an arrest or charge of or for a misdemeanor, and prior to conviction, be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
The record conclusively shows that appellant was indicted in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Florida for violation of the Motor Vehicles Theft Act, Sec. 408 now Secs. 2311-2313, Title 18 U.S.C. At the time of his escape he was in Federal custody in the Miller County, Arkansas, jail, awaiting removal for trial on the indictment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swepston v. United States
...denied 350 U.S. 971, 76 S.Ct. 445, 100 L.Ed. 843, rehearing denied 350 U.S. 1003, 76 S.Ct. 550, 100 L. Ed. 866; Godwin v. United States, 8 Cir., 1951, 191 F.2d 932. See Michener v. United States, 8 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 422; 20 A.L.R.2d 993, 996. Such is the situation here. The District Cour......
-
Authority for the Removal of Fugitive Felons Apprehended Under 18 U.S.C. § 1073, 83-10
...district to another within a single sovereign's territory. See United States v. Godwin, 97 F.Supp. 252, 255 (W.D. Ark.), aff'd, 191 F.2d 932 (5th Cir. 1951) ("the several judicial districts are not foreign to other . . . but are simply convenient subdivisions ... of one sovereign, the Unite......
-
United States v. Person
...or his innocence is proclaimed by a jury. See e. g., Godwin v. United States, 185 F.2d 411 (8th Cir. 1950), rehearing denied, 191 F.2d 932 (8th Cir. 1951); United States v. Jerome, 130 F.2d 514 (2d Cir. 1942), reversed on other grounds, 318 U.S. 101, 63 S.Ct. 483, 87 L.Ed. 640 (1943); and A......
-
Derengowski v. United States
...States". See, Carbo v. United States, 1961, 364 U.S. 611, 81 S.Ct. 338, 5 L.Ed.2d 329; 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241(c) (5); cf., Godwin v. United States, 8 Cir., 1951, 191 F.2d 932; Tucker v. United States, 9 Cir., 1958, 251 F.2d 794. Because defendant's attempted escape is thus manifestly proscribed......