U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1970

United States v. Jessie Spence Sutton

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided February 2, 1970 · Brown, Morgan, Clark

421 F.2d 1394; 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10919 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Howard R. Pigford, Meridian, Miss. (Court-appointed) for defendant-appellant., Robert E. Hauberg, U. S. Atty., E. Donald Strange, Asst. U. S. Atty., Jackson, Miss., for plaintiff-appellee.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Welch (District Court, N.D. Ohio 2001)
Faulk v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)
State v. Cooper (W. Va. 1981)
United States v. Jurgins (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1979)
Blake v. United States (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 1973)
United States v. Allen (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1972)
Hector Salvidar Amaya v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections (5th Cir. 1970)
Denny Dean Shaw v. C. Murray Henderson, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary (5th Cir. 1970)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Ironically, with the ink scarcely dry on our opinion affirming co-defendants’ convictions for the underlying moonshine offenses, United States v. Campbell, 5 Cir., 1969, 419 F.2d 1144 [Dec. 2, 1969], this appeal on judicial screening 1 falls by random assignment to almost the same panel challenging the revocation of probation based upon the illegal Sunday sale of liquor in Alabama just 15 days after the 2-month jail sentence expired.

After an evidential hearing the Court found that the occurrence took place and that it did not constitute entrapment. A revocation proceeding is not the trial of a criminal case, Manning v. United States, 5 Cir., 1947, 161 F.2d 827, cert. denied, 332 U.S. 792, 68 S.Ct. 102, 92 L.Ed. 374; Broadus v. United States, 5 Cir., 1963, 317 F.2d 212, cert. denied, 375 U.S. 829, 84 S.Ct. 74, 11 L.Ed.2d 61. The fact findings are fully supportable. That is the end of it.

Affirmed.

. Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 804, Part 1; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Co., 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 526, Part I [Oct. 7, 1969].

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.