Strickland v. United States, 7890.
| Decision Date | 04 January 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 7890.,7890. |
| Citation | 339 F.2d 866 |
| Parties | Quitman STRICKLAND, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Jon Lee Prather and Rex K. Travis, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.
Benjamin E. Franklin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan. (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan., with him on the brief), for appellee.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PICKETT and SETH, Circuit Judges.
The appellant was convicted by a jury of an attempted escape from the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 751, and has taken this appeal.
Appellant urges that there was a failure on the part of the Government to prove one of the elements of the offense charged. He asserts that the elements of the crime are three; the first being that the accused was convicted, second that he was at the time of the attempt to escape confined by virtue of such conviction, and third that in fact there was an attempt to escape. Appellant urges that there was no proof of the second element of the offense.
The record shows that on this subject of confinement by virtue of a conviction, the Government introduced a "Judgment and Commitment" pertaining to appellant entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. This showed that he was committed on September 19, 1961, to the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized representative for a period of five years. The record contains no further proof of the fact or place of confinement by virtue of this commitment. There was no return endorsed on the "Judgment and Commitment," nor other showing of a delivery of the prisoner. The proof did show appellant was in fact a prisoner at the penitentiary at Leavenworth, and the Government, apparently to bridge the gap, asked the court to take "judicial notice of the fact that the penitentiary at Leavenworth was an institution where persons convicted of crimes under the laws of the United States are confined by direction of the Attorney General." Thus on the point under consideration, the record shows no more than the fact that the appellant was convicted, sentenced to the custody of the Attorney General, and that he was confined at Leavenworth Prison at the time that the offense took place. We do not feel that this is sufficient proof of all the statutory elements of the offense charged.
The act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 751, clearly provides that the offense is an escape or an attempted escape from an institution in which the person charged is confined by direction of the Attorney General, and requires the confinement to be by virtue of a conviction. The indictment of appellant charges that he attempted to escape from an institution in which he was confined by direction of the Attorney General by virtue of conviction for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Bailey
...prove that he was confined in the jail by virtue of the conviction alleged in the indictment. He draws support from Strickland v. United States, 339 F.2d 866 (10th Cir. 1965), a case in which the Tenth Circuit reversed a jury conviction under Section 751(a) because it held that evidence sim......
-
U.S. v. Richardson, 81-1707
...1969); Timms v. United States, 403 F.2d 879 (5th Cir. 1968); Bayless v. United States, 381 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1967); Strickland v. United States, 339 F.2d 866 (10th Cir. 1965); Mullican v. United States, 252 F.2d 398 (5th Cir. 1958); Gould v. United States, 173 F.2d 30 (10th Cir. 1949), cert......
-
United States v. Delgado
...those circumstances it would clearly affect the substantial rights of the defendants.” (citations omitted)); Strickland v. United States, 339 F.2d 866, 868 (10th Cir.1965) ( “[T]he Government failed to prove an essential element of the offense. This error is a fundamental one which may be n......
-
U.S. v. Santistevan, s. 93-4179
...noticed by an appellate court notwithstanding the defendant's failure to raise it in the district court") (citing Strickland v. United States, 339 F.2d 866, 868 (10th Cir.1965)), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1113, 109 S.Ct. 3172, 104 L.Ed.2d 1034 In Kline, we stated courts of appeals do not searc......