TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Thomas Robert Melvin Foy and Lawrence M. Moss

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Robert Melvin FOY and Lawrence M. Moss, Defendants-Appellants

United States v. Thomas Robert Melvin Foy & Lawrence M. Moss, 441 F.2d 398 (5th Cir. 1971)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 5, 1971
Docket
No. 29352
Judges
Ainsworth, Goldberg, Per Curiam, Thornberry
Citations
441 F.2d 3981971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10940

Opinion — Per Curiam

*399 PER CURIAM:

Thomas Robert Melvin Foy and Lawrence Monroe Moss were indicted on two counts for bank robbery and armed robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2113 (a) and 2113(d). The jury returned a verdict of guilty on both counts, and on January 23, 1970, defendant Foy was sentenced to two concurrent terms of 15 years, and defendant Moss was sentenced to two concurrent terms of 17% years. Defendants now appeal from these convictions.

Subsequent to the conviction and sentencing of defendants in this case our court rendered its opinion in United States v. White, 5 Cir. 1971, 440 F.2d 978 . In White we held that subsections (a) and (d) of section 2113 did not create separate offenses but rather created different maximum punishments for a single offense. Thus, we found that the imposition of separate penalties under subsections (a) and (d), even if concurrent, was improper even though “the consummated crime under one subsection may well include the lesser or more aggravated offenses under other subsections,” so that “a single defendant may theoretically have violated more than one subsection.” Where multiple penalties have been imposed, as in the instant case, we held that the proper remedy was “to vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing on one count.” In accordance with the decision in White we therefore vacate each concurrent sentence and remand the case to the district court for resentencing.

Defendants have raised numerous additional errors which they contend require a new trial. Thus, defendants argue that the trial court erred (1) by limiting the scope of defendants’ cross-examination during an in camera hearing on the propriety of certain photographic identifications; (2) by conducting the questioning of prospective jurors on voir dire rather than permitting the questioning to be done by opposing counsel; and (3) by refusing to conduct a broader investigation into defendants’ allegations of jury misconduct. We have carefully considered the briefs and record and find all of these contentions to be without merit.

The sentences of conviction are therefore vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for the resentencing of each defendant on one count.

Vacated and remanded.

How later courts describe this case

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

1972: 11975: 119722026peak 1972 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Oscar Cornelius Goodman v. United States511 F.2d 706 (5th Cir. 1975)
  2. Elwood Calvin Burger v. United States454 F.2d 723 (5th Cir. 1972)

Most recent

  1. Oscar Cornelius Goodman v. United States511 F.2d 706 (5th Cir. 1975)
  2. Elwood Calvin Burger v. United States454 F.2d 723 (5th Cir. 1972)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
United States, Planitiff- v. White, 440 F.2d 978 (5th Cir. 1971) 11

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