Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

United States v. Jake Frank Richardson

498 F.2d 9

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1974-05-15
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: This ease came before the court upon appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel. We denied that motion and entered an order on April 4, 1974, directing appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as frivolous and entirely without merit. Having now received and considered the response to the show cause order, we dismiss the appeal. See Local Rule 9. Appellant was convicted of four counts for the distribution of heroin. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Jake Frank Richardson. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
9 opinions
UNITED STATES v. RICHARDSON,498 F.2d 9(8th Cir. 1974)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE, v. JAKE FRANK RICHARDSON, APPELLANT.
No. 74-1159.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
May 15, 1974.
Jake Frank Richardson, pro se.

Bert C. Hurn, U.S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for appellee in this Court but did not make appearance.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Senior Circuit Judge, and STEPHENSON and WEBSTER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] This case came before the court upon appellant's motion for appointment of counsel. We denied that motion and entered an order on April 4, 1974, directing appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as frivolous and entirely without merit. Having now received and considered the response to the show cause order, we dismiss the appeal.SeeLocal Rule 9.

[2] Appellant was convicted of four counts for the distribution of heroin.21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Sentence was four concurrent ten-year sentences. Thereafter the court on its own motion vacated defendant's sentence and resentenced him to four ten-year concurrent sentences and in addition imposed a special parole term of six years on each count. The basis for vacation of the first sentence was the court's failure to impose themandatoryspecial parole required by21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).

[3] Appellant contends that the imposition of the six-year special parolePage 10term constituted double jeopardy and that the ten-year sentence should have been reduced. The trial court disagreed citing Bozza v. United States,330 U.S. 160,165-167,67 S.Ct. 645,91 L.Ed. 818(1947). We agree with the trial court thatBozzacontrols this case. Where the original sentence is invalid, vacation of that sentence and imposition of another sentence, even though more severe, does not constitute double jeopardy.

[4] Appeal dismissed.Page 143