TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Charles E. Sanders

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Charles E. SANDERS, Appellant

United States v. Sanders, 435 F.2d 165 (9th Cir. 1971)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 1, 1971
Docket
No. 25268
Judges
Hamley, Wright, Burke
Citations
435 F.2d 165

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

After a waiver of counsel and the entry of a guilty plea to bank robbery, Sanders was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. He appealed and the Supreme Court reversed because he claimed to be under the influence of drugs at the time of the waiver and plea. Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1 , 83 S.Ct. 1068 , 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963).

After a new trial he received a twenty-year sentence. We reversed and remanded for resentencing in accord with North Carolina v, Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969). United States v. Sanders, No. 22178 (9th Cir. 1969). Sanders appeals from that sentence. We affirm.

When resentencing Sanders the district court judge restated the comments he had made after the second trial, noting that:

“(1) Sanders had committed a serious crime;

(2) Sanders had an exteremely poor record as a citizen;

(3) Sanders had obviously fabricated his defense and testified falsely at his trial, thus committing a further crime of perjury; and (4) It was apparent to me after studying the presentence report provided to me by the Probation Officer that Sanders had regressed rather than progressed toward rehabilitation during the time that he was in prison. I was aware of only the first two of these things at the time that I pronounced the initial sentence of fifteen years.”

The stated reasons fully comply with the requirements of Pearce, supra.

It was appropriate for the district court judge to take Sanders’ perjury into account in resentencing, Williams v. New *166 York, 337 U.S. 241, 69 S.Ct. 1079 , 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1948), and the fact that he had not been favorably considered for parole.

The decision of the district court is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1976: 119762026peak 1976 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Chester Lee Durbin542 F.2d 486 (8th Cir. 1976)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Chester Lee Durbin542 F.2d 486 (8th Cir. 1976)

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
North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969) 6,465
Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1 (1963) 2,200
Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (1949) 2,164

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