Kirsch v. United States
Decision Date | 06 April 1949 |
Docket Number | No. 13797.,13797. |
Citation | 173 F.2d 652 |
Parties | KIRSCH v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Frank J. Comfort, of Des Moines, Iowa (Walter F. Maley, of Des Moines, Iowa, on the brief), for appellant.
William B. Danforth, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Sioux City, Iowa (Tobias E. Diamond, U. S. Atty., of Sioux City, Iowa, on the brief), for appellee.
Before GARDNER, Chief Judge, and WOODROUGH and COLLET. Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order revoking and terminating probation of appellant.
On September 23, 1946, appellant was convicted upon a plea of guilty under an indictment of five counts, charging violation of the Federal liquor laws. He was sentenced to imprisonment for eighteen months and a fine of $2,000 was imposed. He paid the fine and court costs and was put on probation by the trial judge for a period of three years, on condition, among others, that he "refrain from violation of any state and Federal penal laws." The instrument reciting the conditions of probation which was signed by appellant and the Probation Officer, recites, among other things, the following:
On December 1, 1947, an indictment was returned against appellant in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, charging evasion of the income tax laws. On trial appellant was found guilty on one count and the court thereupon imposed a fine of $10,000 and costs and sentenced appellant to a term of eighteen months imprisonment upon "the termination of the probation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa." Thereafter he appealed to this court from the judgment of conviction and that appeal is still pending and undetermined.
The court concluded as a matter of law that appellant had violated the conditions of his probation and "that the ends of justice and best interests of the public require that the probation of the defendant be terminated." An order was thereupon entered terminating the probation.
In seeking reversal appellant urges that (1) the court erred in taking into consideration the conviction obtained against him in 1948 covering an offense which occurred in 1944; and (2) the court was in error in taking the uncorroborated testimony of an alcohol tax agent who testified that he saw appellant sitting in a friendly game of pinochle, the witness being unable to say whether any money passed between these friends following this friendly game.
Section 724 now § 3651, Title 18 U.S.C.A. provides in effect that the courts of the United States having original jurisdiction in criminal actions shall have power after conviction or after a plea of guilty or nolo contendere for any crime or offense not punishable by death or life imprisonment, to suspend the imposition or execution of sentence and to place the defendant upon probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as the court may deem best, when it shall appear to the satisfaction of the court that the ends of justice and the best interests of the public, as well as the defendant, will be subserved thereby. It is then provided that, "The court may revoke or modify any condition of probation, or may change the period of probation."
Section 725 now § 3653 of the same title provides among other things that at any time within the probation period the Probation Officer may arrest the probationer without warrant, or the court may issue a warrant for his arrest. Thereupon such probationer shall forthwith be taken before the court. At any time after the probation period, but within the maximum period for which the defendant might originally have been sentenced, the court may issue a warrant and cause the defendant to be arrested and brought before the court. Thereupon the court may revoke the probation or suspend the sentence and may impose any sentence which might originally have been imposed.
It is observed that in the instant case sentence was imposed and the probation stayed execution of sentence. Probation...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Garcia
...(1932) 287 U.S. 216, 220, 53 S.Ct. 154, 77 L.Ed. 266 [probation is a matter of favor conferred as a privilege]; Kirsch v. United States (8th Cir. 1949) 173 F.2d 652, 654 [probation is a matter of grace].) Murphy 's reasoning removes Fifth Amendment restrictions from the reach of probation c......
-
State v. Hughes, 54565
...for the robbery. The law on this point is simply against defendant. Shaw v. Henderson, 430 F.2d 1116 (5th Cir.); Kirsch v. United States, 173 F.2d 652 (8th Cir.); Gross v. State, 240 Ark. 926, 403 S.W.2d 75; People v. Hicks, 125 Ill.App.2d 48, 259 N.E.2d 846; Kennedy v. Maxwell, 176 Ohio St......
-
United States v. Birnbaum
...of sentence. See Toyosaburo Korematsu v. United States, 319 U.S. 432, 435, 63 S. Ct. 1124, 87 L.Ed. 1497 (1943); Kirsch v. United States, 173 F.2d 652 (8 Cir. 1949); United States v. Nix, 8 F.2d 759 (S.D. Cal. 1925); United States v. Durkin, 63 F.Supp. 570 (N.D. Ill. 1945). Birnbaum further......
-
People v. Garcia
...States (1932) 287 U.S. 216, 220 [77 L.Ed. 266, 53 S.Ct. 154] [probation is a matter of favor conferred as a privilege]; Kirsch v. U.S. (8th Cir.1949) 173 F.2d 652, 654 [probation is a matter of grace].) Murphy's reasoning removes Fifth Amendment restrictions from the reach of probation cond......