United States v. Tucker

Decision Date18 June 1971
Docket NumberNo. 71-1432.,71-1432.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Neville M. TUCKER, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

James A. Crumlin, Louisville, Ky., for defendant-appellant, Frank E. Haddad, Jr., Louisville, Ky., on brief.

Kenneth J. Tuggle, First Asst. U. S. Atty., Louisville, Ky., for plaintiff-appellee, George J. Long, U. S. Atty., Louisville, Ky., on brief.

Before WEICK, PECK and BROOKS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a Judge of the Police Court of Louisville, Kentucky, pleaded nolo contendere to a three-count information charging him with failure to file federal income tax returns for the years 1964, 1965 and 1966, although his gross income for said years respectively was $24,154.83, $23,398.00 and $30,229.74. The District Court accepted the plea on November 23, 1970, and found the defendant guilty as charged. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently, and he was fined $500 on each count, payable thirty days after final determination of his income tax liability for the years 1964, 1965 and 1966.

The Court suspended execution of the sentence of imprisonment and placed appellant on probation for a period of one year, conditioned on his payment of $11,000 as a credit against his income tax liability for the tax years involved. It was further ordered that during the period of his probation appellant should conduct himself as a law abiding, industrious person and observe such conditions of probation as the Court may prescribe. The conditions of his probation, which were furnished to him, required that he report to the Probation Officer as directed and that he refrain from any violation of law (federal, state and local).

On May 17, 1971, an Official Report was presented to the Court by its Chief Probation Officer, showing violations of the conditions of appellant's probation, which violations included failure to file his income tax return for the year 1970 on or before the date it was due, namely, April 15, 1971, or failure to obtain an extension of time for payment. An order was issued by the Court and served on appellant, requiring him to appear and show cause why his probation should not be revoked for violation of the conditions thereof.

A Memorandum For Revocation Proceedings was prepared by the Chief Probation Officer on May 24, 1971, which indicated that appellant did not timely file his 1970 income tax return due on April 15, 1971, or make a timely request for extension, although on May 14, 1971 he had reported to the Chief Probation Officer that a timely extension had been filed and explained that the extension granted would expire in three days. Appellant did, however, file an income tax return on a 1969 income tax form on May 22, 1971. In his application for extension, which was not filed until April 15, 1971, he did not answer relevant questions therein contained as to whether he had paid the instalments due on his estimated tax return for 1971. The application was returned to him with instructions to complete the answers to the questions and to return it in ten days, which he neglected to do within said period of time.

The District Court conducted a hearing on the show cause order on May 26, 1971, at which hearing the appellant appeared and was represented by counsel. Both appellant and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Banks v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • January 30, 1980
    ...and, if so, what length sentence to impose. See e. g. United States v. Shapiro, 491 F.2d 335 (6th Cir. 1974); United States v. Tucker, 444 F.2d 512 (6th Cir. 1971). In a very real sense, probation revocation is a resentencing. See Nicholas v. United States, 527 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir. 197......
  • Tiitsman v. Black, 75-1682
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • June 10, 1976
    ...have wide discretion in revoking probation. See, e. g., United States v. Shapiro, 491 F.2d 335, 336 (6th Cir.1974); United States v. Tucker, 444 F.2d 512, 513 (6th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1048, 92 S.Ct. 711, 30 L.Ed.2d 739 (1972). On habeas corpus, the "sole issue . . . (then beco......
  • US v. Myers
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • June 23, 1992
    ...is merely a conditional suspension of a custodial sentence. Camarata, 828 F.2d at 979. It is a "matter of grace," United States v. Tucker, 444 F.2d 512, 513 (6th Cir.1971), the purpose of which is "to aid the rehabilitation of a penitent offender." Burns v. United States, 287 U.S. 216, 220,......
  • United States v. Mills
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
    • August 9, 1977
    ...88 L.Ed. 41, 46 (dissenting opinion). "* * * Probation of a person convicted of crime is a matter of grace. * *" United States v. Tucker, C.A. 6th (1971), 444 F.2d 512, 5131, certiorari denied (1972), 404 U.S. 1048, 92 S.Ct. 711, 30 L.Ed.2d 739. In a final probation revocation proceeding, t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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