From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Feb 16, 1970
422 F.2d 1318 (5th Cir. 1970)

Summary

holding that when defendant has not been transferred from court's custody to place of detention at the time his sentences are altered, service of sentences has not officially commenced, and defendant's rights are not impinged by trial court's timely alteration of his sentences

Summary of this case from Obara v. State

Opinion

No. 28850.

February 16, 1970.

Clarence Williams, pro se.

Edward F. Boardman, U.S. Atty., Tampa, Fla., for appellee.

Before WISDOM, COLEMAN, and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.


In this pro se case appellant has failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, F.R.A.P., and has requested that the case be disposed of summarily pursuant to Rule 9(c)(2) of this Court. Stout v. Broom, 5 Cir. 1969, 406 F.2d 758. The district court denied appellant's motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm.

Clarence Williams was convicted on his plea of guilty on two counts of possession of stolen mail, violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1708. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of four years on each count. On that same day, however, before appellant had left the courthouse, he was returned to the courtroom and resentenced to two consecutive four year terms. The sentencing judge explained to Williams that he had intended to say "consecutively" at the earlier proceedings instead of "concurrently".

Williams filed his motion in the court below challenging the authority of the court to alter a sentence once it has been pronounced. The court below denied the motion without a hearing.

When a defendant has not been transferred from the court's custody to a place of detention at the time his sentences are altered, service of the sentences has not officially commenced, and defendant's rights are not impinged by the trial court's timely alteration of his sentences. Vincent v. United States, 8 Cir. 1964, 337 F.2d 891, cert. denied, 380 U.S. 988, 85 S.Ct. 1363, 14 L.Ed.2d 281, reh. denied, 381 U.S. 947, 85 S.Ct. 1775, 14 L.Ed.2d 713; United States v. Byars, 6 Cir. 1961, 290 F.2d 515, cert. denied, 368 U.S. 905, 82 S.Ct. 185, 7 L.Ed.2d 99, reh. denied, 368 U.S. 872, 82 S.Ct. 65, 7 L.Ed.2d 73; Kelley v. United States, 4 Cir. 1956, 235 F.2d 44; Walton v. United States, 1953, 92 U.S.App.D.C. 26, 202 F.2d 18; DeMaggio v. Coxe, 2 Cir. 1934, 70 F.2d 840. Williams had not been removed from the trial court's custody and thus had not commenced service of his sentence. Therefore, the court's correction of his sentence was permissible. We affirm the judgment of the district court.


Summaries of

Williams v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Feb 16, 1970
422 F.2d 1318 (5th Cir. 1970)

holding that when defendant has not been transferred from court's custody to place of detention at the time his sentences are altered, service of sentences has not officially commenced, and defendant's rights are not impinged by trial court's timely alteration of his sentences

Summary of this case from Obara v. State

In Williams v. United States, 422 F.2d 1318 (5th Cir. 1970), the court upheld a modification of a sentence, originally pronounced as involved concurrent terms, to one involving consecutive terms.

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Hallam, (N.D.Ind. 1989)

In Williams v. United States, 422 F.2d 1318 (5th Cir. 1970), the trial court sentenced the defendant to concurrent terms of four years on each of two counts.

Summary of this case from Curtis v. State
Case details for

Williams v. United States

Case Details

Full title:Clarence WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Feb 16, 1970

Citations

422 F.2d 1318 (5th Cir. 1970)

Citing Cases

Curtis v. State

However, the record does not show that he had reached his place of incarceration when the trial court…

Brown v. State

People v. Johnson, 60 Mich. App. 371, 230 N.W.2d 438 (1975). Appellee urges support for its position in Bozza…