United States v. Bell, 72-2816. Summary Calendar.
| Decision Date | 12 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-2816. Summary Calendar.,72-2816. Summary Calendar. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fred Louis BELL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Leighton Cornett, Paris, Tex., for defendant-appellant.
Roby Hadden, U. S. Atty., Dennis Lewis, Asst. U. S. Atty., Tyler, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and GOLDBERG and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Bell pled guilty in 1968 to five counts of bank robbery and was sentenced to serve a total of not more than six years. In May 1970, the district court granted Bell a new trial. Following conviction at this new trial, Bell was sentenced to ten years imprisonment on the same charges which originally resulted in a six-year sentence. The district court attempted to justify the increased sentence by attributing it to what the court considered "perjury" by appellant at the second trial. This court, in United States v. Bell, 5 Cir. 1972, 457 F.2d 1231, reversed the imposition of this higher sentence and entered the following clear mandate:
In effect, Bell has been adjudicated guilty of the crime of perjury without a presentment to a grand jury, without a trial by a jury of his peers, without the right to present evidence in his behalf, and without other procedural safeguards designed for the protection of an accused. United States v. Gambert, 433 F.2d 321 (4th Cir. 1970). In essence, summary punishment has been inflicted upon Bell without due process of law. We therefore vacate the judgment and sentence and remand the cause to the district court with directions to impose a new sentence not to exceed six years.
On remand the district court chose to disregard the clear and unequivocal mandate of this court and again sentenced appellant to ten years. We hereby order the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to comply with this court's directions in United States v. Bell, supra, and to resentence this appellant forthwith to a term not to exceed six years.
Remanded with directions.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. State
...States v. Flynn, 664 F.2d 1296 (5th Cir.1982); United States v. Bell, 457 F.2d 1231, 1238-39 (5th Cir.), appeal after remand 470 F.2d 1178 (5th Cir.1972); McCreary v. Sigler, 406 F.2d 1264, 1269 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 984, 89 S.Ct. 2149, 23 L.Ed.2d 773 In the third reason advanc......
-
U.S. v. Matthews
...need not waste judicial resources by remanding for what undoubtedly would be a rote resentencing."). 7. See, e.g., United States v. Bell, 470 F.2d 1178 (5th Cir.1972) (vacating and remanding after district court ignored a mandate that the new sentence was "not to exceed six 8. Any other app......
-
U.S. v. Harrison
...v. Johnson, 521 F.2d 1318, 1319-1320 (9th Cir. 1975); United States v. Bell, 457 F.2d 1231, 1235 (5th Cir. 1972), rev'd after remand, 470 F.2d 1178 (1972); Williams v. United States, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 206, 208, 328 F.2d 178, 180 (1963).This responsibility of the federal trial judge, it goes ......
-
U.S. v. Johnson
...U.S. 930, 102 S.Ct. 1979, 72 L.Ed.2d 446 (1982); United States v. Bell, 457 F.2d 1231, 1238-39 (5th Cir.), appeal after remand, 470 F.2d 1178 (5th Cir.1972). Moreover, under the recently announced "totality of the circumstances" test, see Illinois v. Gates, --- U.S. ----, ----, 103 S.Ct. 23......