Hammers v. United States
| Citation | 279 F. 265 |
| Decision Date | 20 March 1922 |
| Docket Number | 3689-3700. |
| Parties | HAMMERS v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Joseph N. Morris, of Jacksonville, Fla. (R. E. Stillman, of Jacksonville, Fla., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
Maynard Ramsey, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Jacksonville, Fla.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and KING, Circuit Judges.
On February 10, 1919, the plaintiff in error, Riley C. Hammers pleaded guilty to 12 indictments charging violations of the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act (Comp. St. Secs. 6287g-6287q), and in each of the cases was sentenced to be imprisoned in the United States penitentiary at Atlanta, Ga., for a term of less than one year, beginning from the date of the expiration of a previously imposed sentence which he was serving in the same penitentiary at the time of his above-mentioned convictions on pleas of guilty. On July 21, 1920, the judge of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Georgia, in habeas corpus proceedings instituted by Hammers, discharged him from custody under the above-mentioned sentences, and directed that he be delivered to the marshal for the Southern district of Florida, to the end that the sentences entered in said cases might be corrected. On July 29, 1920, Hammers was sentenced, in each of the cases in which he pleaded guilty, to confinement in the jail of Duval county, Fla., for the period of 6 months beginning July 8, 1920, the date of the expiration of the sentence which he was serving at the time of his convictions on the above-mentioned indictments. Hammers sued out a writ of error to review the above-mentioned judgments of February 10, 1919, and July 29, 1920.
A principal contention urged in behalf of the plaintiff in error is that he was not subject to be resentenced at a term of the court subsequent to the one at which he was convicted on his pleas of guilty. The sentences imposed at the time of the convictions were invalid, as the law does not authorize a sentence to imprisonment in a penitentiary for a period less than one year. In re Mills, 135 U.S. 263, 10 Sup.Ct 762, 34 L.Ed. 107. The imposition of a void sentence is not an obstacle to the assumption by the court which imposed it of jurisdiction of the convict, in order that a legal sentence may be imposed. Where there is a conviction accompanied by a void sentence, the court's jurisdiction of the case for the purpose of imposing a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lee Lim
...... before statehood was appealed to the Supreme Court of the. United States, and it was by that court held that the. provision for a jury of eight persons was ex post ... . . The. rule was again followed in Hammers v. U.S. 279 F. 265, 266, a decision by the Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth. Circuit, on appeal ......
-
United States v. Bruce
...Court in entertaining the motion and held that it had jurisdiction to resentence if the former sentence was void. In Hammers v. United States, 279 F. 265, 266, Judge Walker speaking for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said: "The imposition of a void sentence is not an obstacle to the ass......
-
Wilson v. Bell, 9422.
...a defendant to imprisonment for a term in excess of the lawful limit, its judgment is void to the extent of the excess. In Hammers v. United States, 5 Cir., 279 F. 265, the contention was rejected that where the district court had imposed a void sentence upon a defendant who plead guilty, t......
-
United States ex rel. Coy v. United States
...upon the following decision in support of his contention that this court has jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed for: Hammers v. United States, 5 Cir., 279 F. 265. The opinion in this case used language to that effect, but the case was before the court on a writ of error to review judgm......