Peeler v. United States, 3524
| Decision Date | 13 October 1947 |
| Docket Number | 3525.,No. 3524,3524 |
| Parties | PEELER v. UNITED STATES. BIBEE v. SAME. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Chester Alexander Peeler pro se.
William Ralph Bibee pro se.
Whit Y. Mauzy, U. S. Atty., of Tulsa, Okl., for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.
An indictment containing two counts was returned in the United States Court for Northern Oklahoma against Chester Alexander Peeler, William Ralph Bibee, Theron Robert Jones, and Warren O. Scheesley. The first count charged a conspiracy to rob an insured state bank; and the second count charged the robbery of the bank. The defendants Peeler and Bibee were each sentenced on the second count to imprisonment for a term of 25 years, and they were placed on probation on the first count for a period of five years to commence at the expiration of the sentence imposed on the second count. After serving more than three years in the penitentiary, the defendants Peeler and Bibee each filed in the criminal case a separate motion for the correction of the sentence imposed upon him on the second count, the basis of each motion being that imprisonment for a term of 20 years was the maximum punishment authorized by law for the offense laid in the second count, and that therefore the sentence of 25 years was void. The court denied the motions, and these separate appeals were seasonably taken from that action.
The court which imposed sentence in a criminal case has jurisdiction even after the expiration of the term at which the sentence was imposed to entertain a motion to vacate such sentence on the ground that it exceeded the maximum punishment authorized by law for the offense laid in the indictment and therefore was void; and an appeal will lie from the denial of a motion of that kind. Holiday v. Johnston, 313 U.S. 342, 550, 61 S.Ct. 1015, 85 L.Ed. 1392; Gilmore v. United States, 10 Cir., 124 F.2d 537, certiorari denied 316 U.S. 661, 62 S.Ct. 941, 86 L.Ed. 1738; Roscoe v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 144 F.2d 91.
Coming to the merits, the applicable statute is 12 U.S.C.A. § 588b. Subdivision (a) of the statute provides in effect, among other things, that the robbery of a bank, by force and violence, or by putting in fear, constitutes an offense for which the punishment is a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment of not more than 20 years, or both; and subdivision (b) provides that where one, in committing or attempting to commit any offense defined in subsection (a), assaults any person, or puts in jeopardy the life of any person by the use of a dangerous weapon or device, he shall be fined not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000, or imprisoned not less than 5 years nor more than 25 years, or both. Subdivision (a) creates separate offenses. But subdivision (b) does...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Willis
...1015, 1017, 85 L.Ed. 1392 (1941) (predecessor statute); Brown v. United States, 34 F.3d 990, 991 (10th Cir.1994); Peeler v. United States, 163 F.2d 823, 824-25 (10th Cir.1947) (predecessor statute); Holbrook v. Hunter, 149 F.2d 230, 231-32 (10th Cir.1945) (predecessor statute). We are certa......
-
Burke v. United States, 1439.
...after sentence was pronounced, and more than two months after suspension was revoked and he was imprisoned under it. 13. Peeler v. United States, 10 Cir., 163 F. 2d 823; United States v. Lynch, 7 Cir., 159 F.2d 198; Lucas v. United States, 4 Cir., 158 F.2d 865, certiorari denied 330 U.S. 84......
-
Mares v. United States
...(b), an indictment which incorporates (a) and (d) in one count is not duplicitous as this court has previously held. Peeler v. United States, 163 F.2d 823 (10th Cir. 1947); Holbrook v. Hunter, 149 F.2d 230 (10th Cir. 1945); Casebeer v. United States, 87 F.2d 668 (10th Cir. 1937). Accord, No......
-
State v. Weeks.
...of Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: Gant v. U.S., 161 F.2d 793 (5th Cir. April 21, 1947); Peeler v. U.S., 163 F.2d 823 (10th Cir. October 13, 1947); Thornburg v. U.S., 164 F.2d 37 (10th Cir. October 28, 1947); Ekberg v. U.S., 167 F.2d 380 (1st Cir. March 25, 1948); McInto......
-
Criminal Antitrust Enforcement
...motions because it “subverts the stability of final judgments” (internal quotations omitted)). 671. See Peeler v. United States, 163 F.2d 823 (10th Cir. 1947). 672. See Oksanen v. United States, 362 F.2d 74, 77 (8th Cir. 1966); see also United States v. Deans, 711 F. App’x 178 (4th Cir. 201......
-
Table of Cases
...Inc., 633 F. Supp. 2d 976 (N.D. Cal. 2009), 1271 Peelers Co. v. Wendt, 260 F. Supp. 193 (W.D.Wash. 1966), 1228 Peeler v. United States, 163 F.2d 823 (10th Cir. 1947), 1128 Peerless Heater Co. v. Mestek, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6664 (E.D. Pa. 2000), 497, 545 Peltz v. SHB Commodities, Inc......