Kolaski v. United States
| Citation | 362 F.2d 847 |
| Decision Date | 29 July 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 22465.,22465. |
| Parties | Stanley R. KOLASKI, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
J. Edwin Smith, Houston, Tex., for appellant.
James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and JONES and WATERMAN,* Circuit Judges.
The appellant, Stanley R. Kolaski, was charged by an information in the following language:
On or about October 26, 1964, in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas, STANLEY R. KOLASKI, did wilfully and knowingly make and subscribed a special tax return and application for Registry-Wagering Form 11-C, which was verified by written declaration that it was made under the penalties of perjury, which said special tax return he did not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter in that the said special tax and application for registry and wagering return stated that the defendant had no employees and/or agents engaging in receiving wagers on his behalf for the period October 26, 1964, to June 30, 1965, that the name and address where each such business was conducted was at 1414 Bastrop, at large, Pasadena, Texas, whereas he then and there well knew and believed that he did in fact have employees and/or agents engaged in receiving wagers on his behalf and conducted his wagering business at Wink Drive-In, 3024 South Richey, Houston, Texas and at Larry\'s Drive-In, 4828 Allendale, Houston, Texas, for the period of October 26, 1964, to June 30, 1965. (Violation Section 7206(1), Title 26, United States Code.)
Kolaski waived counsel, waived indictment, and entered a plea of guilty. He was sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000 and to serve a sentence of six months. Before the date fixed for commencing to serve his sentence Kolaski procured counsel and filed motions to set aside the conviction, for a new trial, for arrest of judgment and for correction or reduction of an illegal sentence. At the same time, Kolaski filed a motion to vacate and set aside his conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. All of the motions were denied and appeals to this Court were taken. The appeals have been consolidated.
The offense is defined by the statute in these words:
The statute here involved is a perjury statute. As in the general statute on perjury, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1621, the gist of the offense is a false statement, willfully made, of a material matter. The statement must be with respect to a fact or facts. United States v. Debrow, 346 U.S. 374, 74 S.Ct. 113, 98 L.Ed. 92. See Williams v. United States, 5th Cir. 1957, 239 F.2d 748. The statement must be such that the truth or falsity of it is susceptible of proof. United States v. Slutzky, 3rd Cir. 1935, 79 F.2d 504. The truth or falsity of the statement is to be related to the time the statement is made. Smith v. United States, 6th Cir. 1948, 169 F.2d 118.
It may be noted that the information does not charge a false statement of an intent to have employees in the future engaged in gambling. It charges that, on October 26, 1964, he stated that he had no employees engaged in gambling for the period October 26, 1964, to June 30, 1965, and that he then and there well knew that he did in fact have employees engaged in gambling for the period of October 26, 1964, to June 30, 1965. Since it would have been impossible for the appellant, on October 26, 1964, to have then and there, in fact, had employees for a more than eight months period then beginning, the statement made in the information could not be true and the truth of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Johnson
...United States v. Ury, 106 F.2d 28 (CA 2, 1939), or whether the information or indictment stated an offense, Kolaski v. United States, 362 F.2d 847, 848 (CA 5, 1966). B. What the Guilty Plea Does Not Generally, however, the guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings.......
-
People v. Hagen
...either on the relationship of these statutes to the crime of perjury or simply on common sense. For example, in Kolaski v. United States (5th Cir.1966) 362 F.2d 847, 848, the court said of Internal Revenue Code section 7206(1): "The statute here involved is a perjury statute. As in the gene......
-
People v. Reid
...United States, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923 (1968); United States v. Ury, 106 F.2d 28 (C.A.2, 1939).10 Kolaski v. United States, 362 F.2d 847, 848 (C.A.5, 1966).11 See United States v. Burke, 517 F.2d 377 (C.A.2, 1975); United States v. Mendoza, 491 F.2d 534 (C.A.5, 1974); Unit......
-
Coleman v. Burnett
...Cir. 1967). Guilty pleas are survived, however, by claims that the indictment fails to charge an offense, e. g., Kolaski v. United States, 362 F.2d 847, 848 (5th Cir.1966); Marteney v. United States, 216 F.2d 760, 762 (10th Cir.1954), or that the statute under which a defendant is charged i......