United States v. Lester

Decision Date04 April 1967
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 40216.
Citation287 F. Supp. 870
PartiesUNITED STATES of America v. John LESTER at State Correctional Institution, Graterford, Petitioner, David N. Myers, Supt., Corr. Inst. at Graterford, Pennsylvania, Custodian.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Drew J. T. O'Keefe, U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for United States of America.

John Lester, pro se.

OPINION

KRAFT, District Judge.

The petitioner was indicted and convicted upon two counts of a four count indictment charging him and three others with conspiracy and violations of the bank robbery statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a), (d).1

Count I, in part, charged the petitioner with conspiracy2 "* * * to commit an offense against the United States by assaulting and placing in jeopardy by use of a .22 caliber pistol the lives of bank employees and others while committing an offense in violation of Title 18, United States Code 2113(a), to wit: while taking money, by force and violence, from an employee of a Savings and Loan Association insured by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation in violation of 18 United States Code Section 2113(d)." (Emphasis ours.)

Count II charged the petitioner with taking $2,733.90 by force and violence and assaulting and jeopardizing the life of a bank teller in the course of the taking in violation of § 2113(d).3

Briefly stated, the petitioner contends that the indictment is fatally defective because all of the Counts charging violations of §§ 2113(a) and (d) omit the "essential elements (sic) of 2113(a)" which is "larceny."4 He relies strongly on United States v. Roach, 321 F.2d 1 (3 Cir. 1963) which was an appeal from a conviction on four counts of an indictment charging certain offenses under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113.

The petitioner's reliance is misplaced because in Roach the defendant was charged under § 2113(a) with unlawful entry to commit larceny, while in this case there was no such charge made, but rather, the indictable offense was robbery.

18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a)5 in two distinct paragraphs defines the two separate offenses of robbery and unlawful entry. Prince v. United States, 352 U.S. 322, 326, 77 S.Ct. 403, 1 L.Ed.2d 370 (1957). It is clear that the previously quoted portion of the indictment,6 sufficiently apprised the petitioner of the essential elements of the crime of robbery as set forth in the first paragraph of subsection (a).

We conclude that the petition is without merit.7 Accordingly, we enter the following.

ORDER

Now, this 4th day of April, 1967, it is ordered that the motion of John Lester to vacate and set aside his sentence under § 2255 be, and it is, denied.

1 The petitioner began serving his 5 year federal sentence imposed under Count II of the Indictment, sometime in November, 1966 following his release from state custody under a prior state sentence. The petitioner also received a suspended sentence under Count I with 5 years probation, scheduled to commence upon the completion of his sentence under Count II.

2 18 U.S.C.A. § 371. The petitioner's attack on Count I is premature since he has not completed his prison sentence under Count II. Parker v. Ellis, 362 U.S. 574, 575, 80 S.Ct. 909, 4 L.Ed.2d 963 (note) (1960).

3 Subsection (d) provides as follows:

"Whoever, in committing or in attempting to commit, any offense defined in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, assaults any person or puts in jeopardy the life of any person by the use of a dangerous weapon or device, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than twenty-five years, or both."

4 The petitioner further contends that the omission of the words "steal" or "stolen" is fatal to a charge under § 2113(b). No charge is made in the indictment regarding any violations of § 2113(b).

5 "Whoever, by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • United States v. DeLeo
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • 20 Abril 1970
    ...is his resort to force and violence, or intimidation, in the presence of another person to accomplish his purposes. United States v. Lester, 287 F.Supp. 870 (E.D.Pa.1967), aff'd. 399 F.2d 161 (3d Cir. 1968); Pitman v. United States, 380 F.2d 368 (9th Cir. II A second issue is directed to th......
  • United States v. Williams, Crim. No. 71-025-HM.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 1 Octubre 1971
    ...is his resort to force and violence, or intimidation, in the presence of another person to accomplish his purposes. United States v. Lester, 287 F.Supp. 870 (E.D.Pa.1967), aff'd 399 F.2d 161 (3d Cir. 1968); Pitman v. United States, 380 F.2d 368 (9th Cir. 1967)." (* Footnotes See also the op......
  • Cunningham v. Peyton
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • 20 Junio 1968
    ... ... Civ. A. No. 68-C-36-R ... United States District Court W. D. Virginia, Roanoke Division ... June 20, 1968.        Gerald L ... ...
  • United States v. Lester
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 25 Junio 1968
    ...federal prisoner upon the conviction pursuant to which he is now confined. For the reasons stated in the opinion of the district court, 287 F.Supp. 870, we rule that the present claim that the indictment upon which the accused was tried was fatally defective is without The judgment will be ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT