Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

474 F.2d 581

Docket No. 72-2286.

United States v. Eidum

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Feb. 6, 1973.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1973-02-06

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently February 1982

11 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

1 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“This court will not refute the judge’s own estimation of the deleterious impact of the prior convictions on his determination of sentence. The record shows on its face that the judge did not consider those convictions in imposing sentence.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Dukes v. United States

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2312 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on United States v. Tucker · Tucker v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Samuel Conti · Decided 1973-02-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Kenneth Wayne Eidum, in pro. per. Stan Pitkin, U. S. Atty., Charles W. Billinghurst, Asst. U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee.

¶2Before BROWNING and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and CONTI,* District Judge.

¶4CONTI, District Judge:

¶5Kenneth W. Eidum pleaded guilty to violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312 (Interstate Transportation of a Stolen Motor Vehicle). The trial judge sentenced him to three years. Eidum moved for modification of sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which motion was denied. He appeals to this court from that denial.

¶6This court has held that when:

“There is a reasonable probability that the defective prior convictions may have led the trial court to impose a heavier sentence than it otherwise would have imposed . . . we are unable to conclude that the reception of such evidence was harmless beyond-a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Tucker, 431 F.2d 1292, 1294 (9th Cir. 1970) affirmed 404 U.S. 443, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1971).

¶7*582In the instant case, the trial judge, in his order denying appellant’s Motion for Modification of Sentence, stated:

“The three convictions to which defendant refers are a very insignificant part of a very long criminal record.”

¶8This court will not refute the judge’s own estimation of the deleterious impact of the prior convictions on his determination of sentence. The record shows on its face that the judge did not consider those convictions in imposing- sentence. Therefore, we affirm.

/474/f2d/581 · .json · Public domain