Pegram v. United States

• Decision Date: 13 June 1966
• Docket Number: No. 18299.,18299.
• Citation: Pegram v. United States, 361 F.2d 820 (8th Cir. 1966)
• Parties: William Moore PEGRAM, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

361 F.2d 820 (1966)

William Moore PEGRAM, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 18299.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

June 13, 1966.

William Moore Pegram, pro se.

D. M. Statton, U. S. Atty., Jerry E. Williams, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Claude H. Freeman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Des Moines, Iowa, for appellee.

Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, BLACKMUN and GIBSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner William Moore Pegram, hereinafter called defendant, has taken this timely appeal in forma pauperis as authorized by the District Court from final order denying his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate sentence imposed upon him.

Defendant in a four count indictment returned June 6, 1957, was charged with the following crimes:

Count I, violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a), (entering a bank with intent to commit a felony);

Count II, violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (b), (taking and carrying with intent to steal money in excess of $100.00 from bank);

Count III, violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314, (transporting in interstate commerce stolen securities exceeding $5,000.00 in value, knowing the same to have been stolen);

Count IV, violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, (conspiring with Thomas Gordon Tinkle, Jr. and Latane Pegram to commit all the offenses described in Counts I, II and III).

Defendant was convicted by a jury on all four counts and was sentenced. Upon appeal, we reversed and remanded upon the ground that a newly appointed counsel for Pegram was not given adequate time to properly prepare the defense. Tinkle and Pegram v. United States, 8 Cir., 254 F.2d 23.

After remand, defendant while represented by counsel voluntarily entered a plea of guilty to Count II and Count IV of the indictment. The remaining counts were dismissed. Defendant was sentenced on May 13, 1958, to serve ten years on Count II and five years on Count IV, the sentences to be served consecutively.

Defendant in his present motion states that he has now served the ten year sentence imposed on Count II and that he is entitled to have the sentence entered on Count IV vacated for the following reasons:

1. Count II and Count IV charge offenses arising under distinct statutes and are improperly joined in the second indictment.

2. The imposition of consecutive sentences on Counts II and IV constitutes double jeopardy.

The trial court issued a show cause order to which the Government filed a response. The trial court by order dated January 25, 1966, found defendant's motion to be without merit and dismissed the same, stating:

"It is well established that when an indictment charges both a conspiracy to engage in a course of criminal conduct and a substantive offense committed pursuant to that conspiracy, the accused, upon conviction, may be punished both for the conspiracy and for the substantive offense. Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946); Hill v. United States, 306 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. 1962). It is also clear that the federal courts have inherent power to impose consecutive sentences unless otherwise specified by the statute defining the specific offense involved. Callahan Callanan v. United States, 364 U.S. 587 81 S.Ct. 321, 5 L.Ed.2d 312 (1961). The

...