Holst v. Owens

Decision Date30 January 1928
Docket NumberNo. 5165.,5165.
Citation24 F.2d 100
PartiesHOLST v. OWENS, U. S. Marshal.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

J. McHenry Jones, of Pensacola, Fla. (J. Leo Anderson and Harvey E. Page, both of Pensacola, Fla., on the brief), for appellant.

Fred Cubberly, U. S. Atty., of Gainesville, Fla., and George Earl Hoffman, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Pensacola, Fla., for appellee.

Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.

BRYAN, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant was convicted of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor as charged in three indictments. The first indictment charged a first offense, the second pleaded conviction of the first offense, and the third pleaded conviction of the first and second offenses. The offenses charged in the first and second indictments were committed about the same time, and before the finding of any indictment. The offense charged in the third indictment was committed after conviction upon the first two indictments, and the sentence imposed consisted of a fine of $200 and imprisonment for 13 months in the Atlanta penitentiary. Appellant paid the fine, but in his petition for habeas corpus sought relief against the imprisonment feature of the sentence, on the ground, among others, that he had not been legally convicted of a third offense.

Section 29, tit. 2, of the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA § 46) authorizes for a second offense of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors either a fine of not less than $100 or more than $1,000, or imprisonment of not more than 90 days, and for a third or any such subsequent offense requires both a fine of not less than $500 and imprisonment of not less than 3 months or more than 2 years. That section also makes it the duty of the district attorney to ascertain whether a defendant had been previously convicted, and, if so, to include in the indictment an averment of prior conviction.

It cannot...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Deal v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 17, 1993
    ...as used in the criminal statutes, is one that has been committed after conviction for a first offense.' " Ibid. (quoting Holst v. Owens, 24 F.2d 100, 101 (CA5 1928)). The present statute, however, does not use the term "offense," so it cannot possibly be said that it requires a criminal act......
  • State v. Pierce, 42462
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • August 21, 1979
    ...1975); Hutchinson v. State, 481 S.W.2d 881 (Tex.Crim.App., 1972); Cooper v. State, 259 Ind. 107, 284 N.E.2d 799 (1972); Holst v. Owens, 24 F.2d 100 (5th Cir., 1928); Karz v. State, 279 So.2d 383 (Fla.App., 1973); State v. Mitchell, 2 Wash.App. 943, 472 P.2d 629 (1970); State v. Lohrbach, 21......
  • State v. Ellis
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • April 29, 1983
    ...1975); Hutchinson v. State, 481 S.W.2d 881 (Tex.Crim.App., 1972); Cooper v. State , 284 N.E.2d 799 (Ind., 1972); Holst v. Owens, 24 F.2d 100 (5th Cir., 1928); Karz v. State, 279 So.2d 383 (Fla.App., 1973); State v. Mitchell, 2 Wash.App. 943, 472 P.2d 629 (1970); State v. Lohrbach, 217 Kans.......
  • Com. v. Jarowecki
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • December 30, 2009
    ...as used in the criminal statutes, is one that has been committed after conviction for a first offense.'" Ibid. (quoting Holst v. Owens, 24 F.2d 100, 101 (C.A.5 1928)). The present statute, however, does not use the term "offense," so it cannot possibly be said that it requires a criminal ac......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT