James v. United States, 10842.
Decision Date | 25 January 1944 |
Docket Number | No. 10842.,10842. |
Citation | 140 F.2d 392 |
Parties | JAMES v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Chas. L. Mayer, of Shreveport, La., for appellant.
Malcolm E. Lafargue, U. S. Atty., of Shreveport, La., for the United States.
Before SIBLEY, HUTCHESON, and WALLER, Circuit Judges.
The facts in this case are clearly and succinctly stated in the following portion of the opinion of the court below:
On the other hand the Government contends that the probation became effective at the time of the sentence on the first count. The record of sentence is as follows: "* * * the Court thereupon sentenced him to serve 4 years in the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia, on the first count of this indictment, and on the second count of the indictment, imposition of sentence was suspended for a period of five years after the expiration of the sentence on Count One, and the defendant was ordered placed on active probation, conditioned upon his not again violating any law, state or federal, during the period of said suspension and probation."
The issue thus presented is whether the period of probation began at the time of the imposition of the sentence on the first count. The lower court, answering in the affirmative, imposed a five-year sentence on the appellant on the second count of the indictment, thereby impliedly revoking the suspension of imposition of sentence and probation, from which order this appeal is prosecuted.
A future date not being clearly fixed for the commencement of probation, a majority of this court concur in the construction that the original judgment placed the appellant on probation at the time it was rendered, and that defendant was under probation at the time of the commission of the acts for which revocation of probation is sought and obtained, from which it would necessarily follow that the lower court was acting within its power and discretion in entering the judgment in question.
Affirmed.
I do not believe that the probationary period was intended to begin until the expiration of the sentence of imprisonment imposed under the first count. Therefore, the acts assigned for revocation of probation were committed between sentence on the first count and the beginning of the period of probation, and not while appellant was on probation. It seems to me that the initial sentence was ambiguous as to the time when the probation period would begin, and should be given such reasonable interpretation, or construction, as the facts and circumstances warrant. Viewed in this light: (1) It would seem a little out of the ordinary to place a defendant on probation during the time that he was to be incarcerated in a federal prison. (2) It would seem unnecessary to suspend the imposition of sentence for a period of five years after the expiration of sentence on the first count if the Court had not intended to have the five-year period of probation expire five years after the expiration of the sentence on the first count. (3) The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Matthews v. State
...53 S.Ct. 154, 156, 77 L.Ed. 266, 269 (1932). Com. v. Wendowski, 278 Pa.Super. 453, 420 A.2d 628, 630 (1980), quoting James v. United States, 140 F.2d 392, 394 (5th Cir.1944) (citations omitted) (emphasis The court in Dickens concluded that: [T]he decision in Wendowski is not contrary to sta......
- Commonwealth v. Simmons
-
Commonwealth v. Rosario
... ... Moreover, ... subsection (b) states the court may "revoke an order of ... probation upon proof of the ... Shaw v. United States , 580 U.S. 63, 71 (2016) ... (internal quotations and ... enjoyment of a right ... Id ... at 630 (quoting James v. United States , ... 140 F.2d 392, 394 (5th Cir. 1944)) (internal ... ...
-
Com. v. Dickens
...156, 77 L.Ed. 266, 269 (1932). [327 Pa.Super. 153] Id. at 456, 420 A.2d at 630 (emphasis in original), quoting James v. United States, 140 F.2d 392, 394 (5th Cir.1944) (Waller, J. concurring). See also: Commonwealth v. Vivian, 426 Pa. 192, 231 A.2d 301 (1967); United States ex rel. Sole v. ......