United States v. Tousey
| Decision Date | 07 March 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 6675,6676.,6675 |
| Citation | 101 F.2d 892 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. TOUSEY. SAME v. WRIGHT. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
W. J. Kershaw, of Milwaukee, Wis., for appellants.
E. J. Koelzer, of Milwaukee, Wis., for appellee.
Before SPARKS, TREANOR, and KERNER, Circuit Judges.
Appellants appeal from judgments convicting them of violations of section 241 of the United States Code, Title 25, 25 U.S.C.A. § 241, relating to the sale of liquor to Indians.
The records show that on May 10, 1938, both appellants tendered pleas of nolo contendere, which pleas were accepted by the court who thereupon, on the same day, rendered judgment, sentencing each to two years imprisonment, staying execution of sentence for five days. On June 2, 1938, each appellant filed his motion to vacate and set aside the judgment. The motions were not predicated on the discovery of new evidence. Both appellants also asked leave to withdraw their pleas of nolo contendere. On the same day, June 2, the court denied appellant Tousey's motion to vacate the judgment, and entered an order in the Wright case, denying his motion for new trial and granting his motion to vacate and set aside the judgment and sentence, amending the judgment of May 10 to read that he be committed to imprisonment in the House of Correction for the term of six months. Both appellants filed notice of appeal on June 9.
Serious questions are presented by the records in these cases, although not raised by counsel for appellee, as to the power of the court to entertain the motions here involved in view of the provisions of the Rules for Practice and Procedure in criminal cases relating to motions for new trial and for withdrawal of pleas. See Rule 2(2) and (4), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723a. However, since we find upon examination of the records that neither appeal was timely taken, we are precluded from considering those questions. The record shows that the appeal in the Tousey case was taken on June 9, following denial on June 2 of the motion to vacate the judgment of May 10. The appeal in the Wright case was also taken on June 9, from the amended judgment of June 2. Neither was taken within five days after entry of the judgment of conviction as required by Rule 3 of the Supreme Court rules referred to above. Even if we considered that an appeal lay from the orders of June 2, the time for such appeal expired June 8. See O'Gwin v. United...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Robinson, 16
...5 Cir., 131 F.2d 857; United States v. Infusino, 7 Cir., 131 F.2d 617; Miller v. United States, 5 Cir., 104 F.2d 343; United States v. Tousey, 7 Cir., 101 F.2d 892; O'Gwin v. United States, 9 Cir., 90 F.2d 494; Burr v. United States, 7 Cir., 86 F.2d 502; Fewox v. United States, 8 Cir., 77 F......
-
Paddy v. United States, 10454.
...9 Cir., 90 F.2d 494. See, also, Burr v. United States, 7 Cir., 86 F.2d 502; Decker v. United States, 5 Cir., 97 F.2d 473; United States v. Tousey, 7 Cir., 101 F. 2d 892; Miller v. United States, 5 Cir., 104 F.2d 343; United States v. Infusino, 7 Cir., 131 F.2d 617; Nix v. United States, 5 C......
-
United States v. Infusino
...The motion of the Government is sustained, and the appeal is dismissed. Miller v. United States, 5 Cir., 104 F.2d 343; United States v. Tousey, 7 Cir., 101 F.2d 892; Decker v. United States, 5 Cir., 97 F.2d 473; Wilson v. Byron Jackson Co., 9 Cir., 93 F.2d 577; O'Gwin v. United States, 9 Ci......
-
Nix v. United States, 10310.
...motion for new trial be made. Fewox v. United States, 5 Cir., 77 F.2d 699; Miller v. United States, 5 Cir., 104 F.2d 343; United States v. Tousey, 7 Cir., 101 F.2d 892. No provision is made for delaying appeal because of the putting of the defendant on probation. Probation does not set asid......