United States v. Sanders

Decision Date09 August 1967
Docket NumberCrim. No. 13765. Civ. No. S-245.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Charles Edward SANDERS, Defendant.

William B. Shubb, Asst. U. S. Atty., Sacramento, Cal., for plaintiff.

William K. Morgan, Sacramento, Cal., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HALBERT, District Judge.

Sanders robbed the Capital Office Branch of the Crocker-Anglo Bank at Sacramento, California, on January 16, 1959. He was brought before me on January 19, 1959, and after his rights were fully explained to him, he elected to waive his right to an attorney and waived indictment, after which an information was filed. He entered a plea of guilty to the charge set forth in the information, and the matter was referred to the Probation Officer for a presentence report. I received the Probation Officer's pre-sentence report, and after a study of it I sentenced Sanders to a term of 15 years in prison on February 10, 1959 (See: Cr. No. 12310 in the records of this Court when it was the Northern Division of the Northern District of California).

On January 4, 1960, Sanders filed a proceeding under Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in which he alleged among other things that he was denied the right to counsel at the time he pled guilty. I denied this motion on the record as his complaint was a patent fabrication and was so established by the record. Sanders did not appeal from this order.

On September 8, 1960, Sanders filed a new proceeding under Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in which he alleged for the first time that he was under the influence of drugs at the time of his "trial and sentence" (See: Civil No. 8156 in the records of this Court when it was the Northern Division of the Northern District of California). I denied this petition first because he had already filed one petition that had been denied (See: Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255), and further because I saw him at the time of the initial proceeding in his case and on the facts his petition was without merit. This order was appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed (See: Sanders v. United States, 9 Cir., 297 F.2d 735). The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed both me and the Court of Appeals (See: Sanders v. United States, 371 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148).

The case came back to me, and in the face of Sanders' claim that he was under the influence of drugs at the time of the previous proceedings, I was of the view that the only appropriate thing to do was to set aside the entire original proceedings. This I did, and the Grand Jury thereafter indicted Sanders for the bank robbery (See: Cr. No. 13765 in the records of this Court when it was the Northern Division of the Northern District of California). I appointed an attorney to represent Sanders and he entered a plea of "Not Guilty" after which there was a trial by jury in which Sanders told what to me was a fabricated story. He tried to make it appear that he had no idea what he was doing as the result of his drinking and the drugs that he had been taking. The Government produced evidence that the drug given him was so mild that it could be safely given to a small child. A medical doctor who also had a degree in pharmacy described the drug and expressed the opinion that Sanders could not possibly have been affected by it. I did not think Sanders was telling the truth and apparently the jury did not believe him either for, as I remember it, the jury deliberated less than one half hour, and brought in a verdict of guilty. I secured a new pre-sentence report from the Probation Officer and after deliberate consideration of all the facts then before me I sentenced Sanders to a term of 20 years in prison under the provisions of Title 18 U.S.C. § 4208(a) (2) on January 23, 1964.

Sanders has filed the instant proceeding under Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. By this motion Sanders seeks correction of the sentence imposed by me on January 23, 1964. He asserts that this sentence is illegal on two grounds: (1) that imposition of the maximum sentence following vacation of a lesser sentence is unconstitutional; and (2) that he is entitled to credit for time served under a sentence in the original, but separate, case growing out of the same set of facts.

I

The first ground has been discussed in several recent decisions,1 but a case virtually on all fours with the instant case is Starner v. Russell, 378 F. 2d 808 (3rd Cir.—Decided May 25, 1967). In that case the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the imposition of an increased sentence after a trial which followed the vacation of a prior guilty plea and sentence. The Court noted that there is significant difference between those cases where the Government is given a second chance to characterize and chastise the defendant in a trial as opposed to those cases where a defendant, sentenced after a plea of guilty, thereafter succeeds in vacating that plea and goes to trial on the merits:

"To so hold would seem to trespass the integrity of the trial judge who, upon hearing all the evidence, with the whole panorama of defendant's crime laid out before him, conscientiously passes sentence in accordance therewith * * *. The sentence thus imposed by the trial judge cannot, in any sense, be said to be for his appealing, unless we again attribute to him a base motive—penalizing him for his appeal, conduct unworthy of the name of judge—rather than for his weighing and evaluating the measure of defendant's crime and passing sentence thereon, in the light of the wider, factual area encompassed by the trial which, in most instances, is far more revealing than those factual elements taken into consideration in the imposition of sentence upon a plea of guilty." (378 F.2d p. 811)

I consider this case to be decisive of the issues here.2 I am of the view that so long as Congress delegates the sentencing power to the District Courts those courts must have the power to temper justice with logic as well as mercy.

As already noted, Sanders originally waived his right to an attorney, his right to indictment by the Grand Jury, and entered a plea of guilty. When he came before me for sentence on January 23, 1964, I felt that I was faced with a new and completely different situation. At that time I took into consideration four things: (1) Sanders had committed a serious crime; (2) Sanders had an extremely poor record as a citizen; (3) Sanders had obviously fabricated his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • State v. Stafford, 495
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • December 9, 1968
    ...States v. Fairhurst, 388 F.2d 825 (3d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 392 U.S. 912, 88 S.Ct. 2072, 20 L.Ed.2d 1370; United States v. Saunders, 272 F.Supp. 245 (E.D.Cal.1967); Hobbs v. State, 231 Md. 533, 191 A.2d 238 (1962), cert. denied 375 U.S. 914, 84 S.Ct. 212, 11 L.Ed.2d 153 (1963); King v. ......
  • Moon v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • July 3, 1968
    ...v. United States * * * and Stroud v. United States * * *.' Other similar holdings and rejections of Patton include United States v. Sanders (E.D.Cal.1967), 272 F.Supp. 245; Rice v. Simpson (M.D.Ala.1967), 274 F.Supp. 116; United States ex rel. Davis v. Brierly (M.D.Pa.1967), 274 F.Supp. 100......
  • U.S. v. Clayton, 77-1990
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • January 4, 1979
    ...890, 90 S.Ct. 180, 24 L.Ed.2d 164 (1969); Lee v. United States, 400 F.2d 185, 188-90 (9th Cir. 1968). See also United States v. Sanders, 272 F.Supp. 245, 248 (E.D.Cal.1967). The court in Lewis stated "(t) he mandate and operative scheme implicit in the statute provides that the available cr......
  • Soyka v. Alldredge, 72-1918.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • July 10, 1973
    ...entitled. See Pace v. Clark, 453 F.2d 411 (5 Cir. 1972); United States v. Morgan, 425 F.2d 1388 (5 Cir. 1970); United States v. Sanders, 272 F.Supp. 245 (E.D.Cal.1967). See also, Smoake v. Willingham, 359 F.2d 386 (10 Cir. 1966). The record reveals that Soyka applied unsuccessfully to an of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 10 SUCCESSIVE PETITIONS
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Federal Habeas Corpus: Cases and Materials (CAP)
    • Invalid date
    ...and the State once again indicted Sanders. After a jury convicted him, the district court sentenced Sanders to twenty years in prison. 272 F. Supp. 245 (E.D. Cal. 1967). Sanders unsuccessfully challenged the increase in sentence. 2. Dissenting opinion by Justice Harlan JUSTICE HARLAN, whom ......

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