Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

56 F.2d 152

Docket No. 6470.

Miller v. Aderhold

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Feb. 20, 1932.

Rehearing Denied March 11, 1932.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1932-02-20

Cited by 2 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1933

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Ex parte United States · United States ex rel. Campbell v. Bishop · Mule v. Aderhold

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1932-02-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1See, also, 52 F.(2d) 1084.

¶2Joseph F. Miller, of Atlanta, Ga., and E. E. Willis, of New Orleans, La., for appellant.

¶3Clint W. Hager, U. S. Atty., and Hal Lindsay, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.

¶4Before BRYAN, FOSTER, and WALKER, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6Appellant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with stealing mail matter, in violation of section 194 of the Criminal Code (18 USCA § 317). The District Judge who received the plea suspended sentence indefinitely, but some six months later another judge of the same District Court imposed a sentence of four years in the Atlanta penitentiary. This appeal is taken from an order dismissing a writ of habeas corpus previously issued, and remanding appellant to custody.

¶7The order indefinitely and unconditionally suspending the imposition of sentence was void. Ex parte United States, 242 U. S. 27, 37 S. Ct. 72, 61 L. Ed. 129, L. R. A. 1917E, 1178, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 355. A judge of the trial court had authority, notwithstanding the attempted suspension, to impose sentence, and to order that appellant be committed to the penitentiary. United States, ex rel. Campbell v. Bishop (C. C. A.) 47 F.(2d) 95.

¶8The judgment is affirmed.

/56/f2d/152 · .json · Public domain