Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

51 F.2d 714

Docket No. 185.

Wall v. Aderhold

Georgia Northern District Court

Decided Aug. 4, 1931.

Georgia Northern District Court · decided 1931-08-04

2 counsel of record

Relies on United States v. Benz · Ex parte Givins · Ex parte Waterman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1931-08-04

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2014

11 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

120193119401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Thomas J. Wall, in pro. per.

¶2Hal Lindsay, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Atlanta, Ga., for respondent.

¶3UNDERWOOD, District Judge.

¶4It appears from the certified record that the petitioner was, upon a plea of guilty, sentenced by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, on November 13, 1929, to serve three years in the National Training School for Boys at Washington, and that on the next day, November 14, 1929, during the same term, petitioner was again brought before the court and resenteneed to a term of five years to be served in the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta.

¶5The offense charged was the unlawful transportation in interstate commerce of a stolen automobile, knowing the same to have been stolen.

¶6Apparently the sentence was changed because, under the law, the defendant could not be admitted to the National Training School for Boys, since he was over the age of seventeen years.

¶7In this case the designation of the institution where sentence was to be served was not a necessary part of the judgment of the court, and does not invalidate that part of the sentence which committed the defendant to a term of three years. Ex parte Waterman (D. C.) 33 F. 29; Ex parte Givins (D. C.) 262 F. 702, and bases cited.

¶8Under authority of United States v. Benz, 282 U. S. 304, 51 S. Ct. 113, 75 L. Ed. 354, In re Graves (D. C.) 117 F. 798 (cited and approved by the Supreme Court in the Benz Case), and Price v. McGuinness (C. C. A.) 269 F. 977, the second sentence, increasing the term from three to five years, is invalid to the extent of its excess over and above the three years imposed by the first sentence, although valid as to change of the place of the execution of the sentence, because passed, at the same term of court, as a permissible modification or correction of the first sentence.

¶9This court is therefore of opinion that defendant’s sentence is valid only for a term of three years, and that upon satisfaction of the same he should be released under the provisions of the law relating to paroles or be discharged upon the completion of the three-year term as the case may be. An order to this effect will be entered.

/51/f2d/714 · .json · Public domain