Livers v. United States

• Decision Date: 15 December 1950
• Docket Number: No. 11192.,11192.
• Citation: Livers v. United States, 185 F.2d 807 (6th Cir. 1950)
• Parties: LIVERS v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

185 F.2d 807 (1950)

LIVERS v.UNITED STATES.

No. 11192.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

December 15, 1950.

Charles T. Livers, in pro. per.

Joseph C. Bullock, Cincinnati, Ohio, Ray J. O'Donnell, Joseph C. Bullock, Cincinnati, Ohio, on brief, for appellee.

Before HICKS, Chief Judge, and ALLEN and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On November 30, 1943, the appellant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of kidnaping in violation of Title 18, section 408a,¹ U.S.C., and was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 75 years.The indictment charged that the kidnaper, for the purpose of robbing his victim, transported the victim in interstate commerce; and, while enroute from Cook County, Illinois, tied, trussed, and choked him, and with a heavy blunt instrument beat him into insensibility: all to his serious injury.

On a motion to correct the sentence, filed March 21, 1949, appellant avers that the district judge, in sentencing him to 75 years imprisonment, exceeded his power, abused his discretion, and "was barred, by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, from imposing sentence in excess of twenty-five (25) years under the United States Criminal Code."He asserts in his motion that the sentence of 75 years is more severe than a life sentence, in that a "natural life termer" is eligible for parole in 15 years, "whereas the defendant must serve a minimum of twenty-five years before he is eligible to apply for a parole."

After hearing the motion, the district court filed appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered an order on April 5, 1950, denying the motion to correct sentence.From the findings of fact, it appears that experienced criminal lawyers were appointed by the court to represent the defendant.These attorneys advised him of his constitutional rights; and, after several conferences with them, appellant, when arraigned in open court, entered a plea of guilty to the indictment.His mother and sister were also present in court and advised with him.Before his arraignment, appellant was examined by a qualified psychiatrist who pronounced that appellant was not suffering from any type of mental disease.

The district court's findings revealed that appellant hitchhiked a ride at Dwight, Illinois, with his victim.Not far from Chicago, appellant pointed a gun at the victim and forced him to get out of the car and into its trunk compartment, which appellant then locked.The victim was robbed by appellant of his wallet and money.With the victim locked in the trunk, appellant drove the car into Indiana; and, in that state, released the victim from the trunk, took him to a corn field where he gagged him and bound him hand and foot.Moreover, appellant beat his victim with his fist and hammered him into unconsciousness with a gun.Later, appellant unbound the victim and, while threatening him with the gun, drove him to Cincinnati, where he released the victim and fled in the latter's car.

After being captured and taken to the county jail in Cincinnati where he awaited action of the federal grand...