TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Robert M. Kossin v. United States

Robert M. KOSSIN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Kossin v. United States, 235 F.2d 188 (6th Cir. 1956)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 13, 1956
Docket
No. 12773_1
Judges
Simons, Allen, Miller
Citations
235 F.2d 1881956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3846

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, being represented by an attorney of his own choice, executed written waivers of indictment and consented to be prosecuted by informations, which were filed in open court together with the signed waivers. The informations charged forgery of the endorsement of a payee on a United States Treasury check and the theft of a letter from the United States Mail, contrary to the provisions of Sections 495 and 1708, Title 18, U.S. Code. Following pleas of guilty, he was sentenced to five years imprisonment on each information to run concurrently.

*189 This appeal is from the denial by the District Judge of appellant’s motion to vacate the judgment, filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 2255, Title 28, U.S.Code.

The Court being of the opinion that it was sufficient under Rule 7(b), Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C., for the waivers of indictment to be filed in open court before arraignment without the necessity that they also be executed by the appellant in open court, Barkman v. Sanford, 5 Cir., 162 F.2d 592 ; United States v. Jones, 7 Cir., 177 F.2d 476 .

And that it was not necessary that appellant be present at the hearing of his present motion in the District Court, Austin v. United States, 6 Cir., 224 F.2d 273 .

And that under the provisions of Section 1708, Title 18, U.S.Code, as amended July 1, 1952, which is prior to the date of the offense herein charged, it is not necessary to allege and prove the monetary value of the thing stolen to authorize a sentence of five years.

It is ordered that the judgment be affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1957: 11958: 11959: 11961: 11963: 12006: 12008: 119572026peak 1957 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Danou260 F. App'x 864 (6th Cir. 2008)
  2. State v. Chacon309 P.2d 230 (N.M. 1957)
  3. William Edwards v. United States265 F.2d 909 (6th Cir. 1959)
  4. State v. Jarrett317 S.W.2d 368 (Mo. 1958)
  5. John J. Ching v. United States292 F.2d 31 (10th Cir. 1961)
  6. United States v. Stewert425 F. Supp. 2d 727 (E.D. Va. 2006)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Danou260 F. App'x 864 (6th Cir. 2008)
  2. United States v. Stewert425 F. Supp. 2d 727 (E.D. Va. 2006)
  3. Kurnava v. United States222 F. Supp. 822 (W.D. Mo. 1963)
  4. John J. Ching v. United States292 F.2d 31 (10th Cir. 1961)
  5. William Edwards v. United States265 F.2d 909 (6th Cir. 1959)
  6. State v. Jarrett317 S.W.2d 368 (Mo. 1958)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Barkman v. Sanford, 162 F.2d 592 (5th Cir. 1947) 33
United States v. Jones, 177 F.2d 476 (7th Cir. 1949) 10
Austin v. United States, 224 F.2d 273 (6th Cir. 1955) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list