U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1962

Thomas E. Peters v. United States of America, Kenneth F. Mills v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided September 20, 1962 · Edgerton, Prettyman, Fahy

307 F.2d 193 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Henry F. Eaton, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), for appellant in No. 15546. Mr. DeWitt T. Yates, Washington, D. C. (also appointed by this court) was on the brief for appellant in No. 15546., Mr. Peter R. Cella, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Lyman S. Hulbert, Washington, D. C. (both appointed by this court), was on the brief, for appellant in No. 15998., Mr. Daniel J. McTague, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Mr. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., at the time brief was filed, and Mr. Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., at the time brief was filed, were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Frank Q. Nebe-ker, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee in No. 15998.

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Tyrone C. Hopkins (D.C. Cir. 1976)
Vincent E. Scott v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1969)
Willard Bennings, Jr. v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1965)
William C. Coleman v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1965)
William R. Leach v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1964)
Thibodeau v. Com. of Mass. (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1977)
Larry E. Stead v. United States (8th Cir. 1976)
United States ex rel. Russell v. Vallee (District Court, S.D. New York 1971)
United States v. Gary Malcolm (2d Cir. 1970)
United States v. Michael J. Spadoni, A/K/A Michael L. Sanders (D.C. Cir. 1970)
United States v. Herman Cecil Deas (5th Cir. 1969)
United States of America Ex Rel. Arthur Jackson v. David N. Myers, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Graterford, Pennsylvania (3d Cir. 1967)
William R. Leach v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1966)
Larry O. Black v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1965)

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.

We have reviewed the cases in light of appellants’ contentions with respect to the validity of their convictions of robbery, defined in 22 D.C.Code § 2901 (1961), but find no error which justifies setting aside the convictions.

However, we conclude that the procedure followed by the trial judge in imposing sentences was erroneous. Appellant Peters was twenty-one years of age, and Mills nineteen. Each was given the maximum sentence, imposed just after the verdicts were rendered. The vacation of these sentences at the suggestion of the United States and the reimposition thereafter of the same sentences was not curative of the procedure followed.

We conclude that the appropriate remedy, see 28 U.S.C. § 2106, is that the sentences be vacated, followed by pre-sentence investigations and reports as authorized by Rule 32(c) Fed.R.Crim.P., 18 U.S.C., with opportunity to defendants and their counsel to make statements and present information in mitigation of punishment, as authorized by Rule 32(a) Fed.R.Crim.P., before final decision as to the sentences to be imposed.

It is so ordered.

EDGERTON, Circuit Judge.

Since the court is affirming the convictions, I agree that the defendants must be resentenced. But I would reverse the convictions. As I read the record, the judge erroneously told the jury that robbery was clearly proved and also that the defendants had confessed. I cannot say these errors were not prejudicial.

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