TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Donald Wiliam Wertman

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Wiliam WERTMAN, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Wertman, 485 F.2d 566 (5th Cir. 1973)
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
October 19, 1973
Docket
No. 73-1968
Judges
Tuttle, Bell, Goldberg
Citations
485 F.2d 566

Opinion — Per Curiam

*567 PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a conviction following a non-jury trial on charges of an offense, against a thirteen year old boy, under Florida Statutes Annotated § 800.04.

1

The offense was committed on a federal reservation, and the Florida statute was applicable under the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 13 .

There are two assignments of error. As to the first, we find the evidence to be sufficient to warrant the conviction.

Second, we find no impropriety in the sentence which was less than the maximum under the Florida statute. Despite the fact that no such relief was sought in the district court, appellant contends that it was error for the court to fail to use the psychiatric examination procedure required by Florida statutes before sentencing him for the offense in question. See F.S.A. § 801.051 et seq. We disagree. The federal district courts use federal facilities and follow federal procedures in imposing sentences under the Assimilative Crimes Act. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 4208 (b). Cf. United States v. Smith, 10 Cir., 1972, 464 F.2d 194 , where indeterminate sentences under the Federal Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 5010 (b), were imposed in sexual assault cases tried under the Colorado statutes.

Nevertheless, we do note that § 801.051 clearly expresses a Florida legislative policy of ascertaining the mental condition of sexual offenders prior to their sentencing. While we hold that the Assimilative Crimes Act does not bind federal courts to state sentencing procedures, we think it appropriate for the district court to consider, in its discretion, this state sentencing policy in the circumstances here. Upon a properly filed motion to correct or reduce sentence, Rule 35, F.R.Crim.P., the district court may, in its discretion, order the presentence examination authorized by 18 U.S.C.A. § 4208 (b).

The judgement of conviction is affirmed.

1

. F.S.A. § 800.04 [1973 Supp.] is as follows:

“Lewd, lascivious or indecent assault or act upon or in presence of child — Any person who shall handle, fondle or make an assault upon any male or female child under the age of fourteen years in a lewd, lascivious or indecent manner, or who shall knowingly commit any lewd or lascivious act in the presence of such child, without intent to commit rape where such child is female, shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in § 775.082, § 775.083, or § 775.-084.”

How later courts describe this case

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

1975: 12001: 119752026peak 1975 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Martinez274 F.3d 897 (5th Cir. 2001)
  2. State v. DeSchepper231 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. 1975)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Martinez274 F.3d 897 (5th Cir. 2001)
  2. State v. DeSchepper231 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. 1975)

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 v. Smith, 464 F.2d 194 (10th Cir. 1972) 21

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