Long v. United States

Citation296 F.2d 148
Decision Date08 November 1961
Docket NumberNo. 16779.,16779.
PartiesMartin R. LONG, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Martin R. Long, pro se.

F. Russell Millin, U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., and John S. Boyer, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., were on the brief for appellee.

Before VOGEL, VAN OOSTERHOUT and BLACKMUN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Martin R. Long appeals herein from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri overruling his motion to vacate sentence filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.

On February 11, 1954, a two-count indictment was returned against the appellant. The first count charged a violation of the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312. Such count was dismissed. The second count charged a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 752, in which it was alleged:

"That on or about the 16th day of February, 1953, one Martin Robert Long did unlawfully, wilfully, knowingly and feloniously aid and assist in the escape from the Greene County Jail, Springfield, Missouri, of Fred Paul Shannon and Jack Harold Richardson, who had been arrested upon a warrant issued under the law of the United States and committed to the custody of the Attorney General, and said custody and confinement was by virtue of an arrest on a charge of felony."

Tried before a jury, the appellant was found guilty and on April 20, 1954, was sentenced on said Count 2 to serve four years

"* * * Sentence to begin at the expiration of sentence or sentences now serving in any prison or institution."

At the time of indictment and prior to trial appellant had been serving a sentence in the Arizona State Prison at Florence, Arizona. After trial herein he was returned to complete service of such sentence. On July 5, 1960, being released therefrom, he was transferred to the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, where he began serving the sentence under attack here.

On February 10, 1961, appellant filed his first motion to vacate sentence under § 2255. This motion was overruled by the District Court by order dated February 24, 1961. On March 21, 1961, appellant filed a second motion, supported by an affidavit, for vacation of sentence in forma pauperis. Such motion was overruled by the District Court on March 22, 1961. Appellant's notice of appeal to this court covered both applications jointly. In an order dated May 26, 1961, this court denied Long's application to appeal in forma pauperis from the District Court's order of February 24, 1961, for the reason that the question sought to be raised represented on the face of the record a matter which would be cognizable only on an appeal from the conviction. Long's application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis from the District Court's order of March 22, 1961, was granted. It is that order which is on review here.

Appellant was indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced under 18 U.S. C.A. § 752, which provides:

"§ 752. Instigating or assisting escape
"Whoever rescues or attempts to rescue or instigates, aids or assists the escape of any person arrested upon a warrant or other process issued under any law of the United States, or committed to the custody of the Attorney General or to any institution by his direction, shall, if the custody or confinement is by virtue of an arrest on a charge of felony, or conviction of any offense, be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; or, if the custody or confinement is for extradition or by virtue of an arrest or charge of or for a misdemeanor, and prior to conviction, be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." (Enacted June 25, 1948.)

It is the appellant's contention that the foregoing statute is applicable only to "prison officials and outsiders" and accordingly, he being an inmate confined in the ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Jones v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • January 23, 1964
    ...against it and to plead it in bar to future prosecution and is not subject to collateral attack by the pending motion. Long v. United States, 8 Cir., 296 F.2d 148. Grounds numbered 5 and 6, above, were raised by petitioner in his prior motion as specific omissions of his counsel resulting i......
  • United States v. Rudinsky, 20527.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • March 26, 1971
    ...him intelligently to defend against it, and to plead it as a bar to future prosecutions for the same offense. Long v. United States, 296 F. 2d 148, 150-151 (8th Cir. 1961). Secondly, appellant argues that the trial court committed plain error in admitting into evidence five exhibits lacking......
  • Williams v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • April 15, 1966
    ...him to defend himself against the charge and to plead the defense of double jeopardy in bar to a subsequent prosecution. Long v. United States, 8 Cir., 296 F.2d 148. It is obvious that the omission of certain formal words from an indictment is not such a defect as to make it impossible for ......
  • U.S.A v. Mccauley, Case No. 07-4009-01-CR-C-NKL
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • March 11, 2011
    ...meets sufficiency requirements and that "[m]ore may not be expected or required." [Doc. # 231, at 2 (quoting Long v. United States, 296 F.2d 148, 150-51 (8th Cir. 1961))]. Thus, Counts One and Twenty-Eight of the indictment each sufficiently allege a single conspiracy that occurred during a......

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