Record v. Hudspeth
| Decision Date | 20 February 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 2418.,2418. |
| Citation | 126 F.2d 215 |
| Parties | RECORD v. HUDSPETH. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
George B. Powers, of Wichita, Kan., for appellant.
Summerfield S. Alexander, U. S. Atty., and Homer Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Topeka, Kan., for appellee.
Before BRATTON, HUXMAN, and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.
Appellant, Oren Lester Record, seeks release from the federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, by writ of habeas corpus. He has appealed from the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas denying his application for the writ.
An indictment containing two counts was lodged against him in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The first count charged that on or about August 17, 1937, he transported or caused to be transported in interstate commerce from Plattsmouth, Nebraska, to St. Louis, Missouri, knowing the same to have been stolen, a stolen automobile. The second count charged that on or about the same date he received and concealed such stolen automobile, then moving in interstate commerce, knowing at the time of such receipt and concealment that it had been stolen. He was found guilty on both counts and was sentenced to a term of five years on each count, with the provision that the sentences should run consecutively. It is his contention that the two counts charge but a single offense and that the two sentences combined exceed the maximum sentence that can be imposed under the statute. The pertinent portion of 18 U.S.C.A. § 408, the applicable statute, provides:
Two separate and distinct offenses are stated in the statute, first, the offense of transporting in interstate commerce a motor vehicle, knowing the same to have been stolen, and second, receiving, concealing, storing, bartering, selling or disposing of a motor vehicle moving in interstate commerce, knowing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Madsen v. United States
...United States, 2 Cir., 293 F. 532; Jelke v. United States, 7 Cir., 255 F. 264. 7 Chrysler v. Zerbst, 10 Cir., 81 F.2d 975; Record v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 126 F.2d 215; Lindsay v. United States, 10 Cir., 134 F.2d 960. 8 O'Neill v. United States, 8 Cir., 19 F. 2d 322; Poffenbarger v. United Sta......
-
United States v. Linkenauger
...separate are Madsen v. United States, 165 F.2d 507 (10th Cir. 1947); Batson v. Squier, 146 F.2d 264 (9th Cir. 1944); Record v. Hudspeth, 126 F.2d 215 (10th Cir. 1942); Chrysler v. Zerbst, 81 F.2d 975 (10th Cir. Since the Supreme Court affirmed Woody, although by an equally divided Court, we......
-
Woody v. United States
...question has arisen. Chrysler v. Zerbst, 10 Cir., 1936, 81 F.2d 975; Jackson v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 1940, 111 F.2d 128; Record v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 1942, 126 F.2d 215, certiorari denied 316 U.S. 703, 62 S.Ct. 1310, 86 L.Ed. 1771; Lindsay v. United States, 10 Cir., 1943, 134 F.2d 960, certio......
-
United States v. Dye
...of the same set of circumstances. York v. United States, 6 Cir., 299 F. 778; Doll v. Johnson, Warden, 9 Cir., 95 F.2d 838; Record v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 126 F.2d 215. In any event, since the two sentences ran concurrently and the sentence on count 1 is within the limits of the statute, the v......