Clarence Williams v. United States
Clarence WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
In this pro se case appellant has failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, F.R.A.P., and has requested that the case be disposed of summarily pursuant to Rule 9(c) (2) of this Court. Stout v. Broom, 5 Cir. 1969, 406 F.2d 758 . The district court denied appellant’s motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . We affirm.
Clarence Williams was convicted on his plea of guilty on two counts of possession of stolen mail, violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1708 . He was sentenced to concurrent terms of four years on each count. On that same day, however, before appellant had left the courthouse, he was returned to the courtroom and resentenced to two consecutive four year terms. The sentencing judge explained to Williams that he had intended to say “consecutively” at the earlier proceedings instead of “concurrently”.
Williams filed his motion in the court below challenging the authority of the court to alter a sentence once it has been pronounced. The court below denied the motion without a hearing.
When a defendant has not been transferred from the court's custody to a place of detention at the time his sentences are altered, service of the sentences has not officially commenced, and defendant’s rights are not impinged by the trial court’s timely alteration of his sentences. Vincent v. United States, 8 Cir. 1964, 337 F.2d 891 , cert. denied, 380 U.S. 988 , 85 S.Ct. 1363 , 14 L.Ed.2d 281 , reh. denied, 381 U.S. 947 , 85 S.Ct. 1775 , 14 L.Ed.2d 713 ; United States v. Byars, 6 Cir. 1961, 290 F.2d 515 , cert. denied, 368 U.S. 905 , 82 S.Ct. 185 , 7 L.Ed.2d 99 , reh. denied, 368 U.S. 872 , 82 S.Ct. 65 , 7 L.Ed.2d 73 ; Kelley v. United States, 4 Cir. 1956, 235 F.2d 44 ; Walton v. United States, 1953, 92 U.S.App.D.C. 26 , 202 F.2d 18 ; De-Maggio v. Coxe, 2 Cir. 1934, 70 F.2d 840 . Williams had not been removed from the trial court’s custody and thus had not commenced service of his sentence. Therefore, the court’s correction of his sentence was permissible. We affirm the judgment of the district court.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(Defendant, originally sentenced to concurrent terms of four years each on two counts, who had not yet commenced service of sentence may be recalled for imposition of consecutive sentences.)
-
(correction made approximately seven hours later on same day)
Cited by 19 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.