Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/98797/tinder-vs-united-states
Timestamp: 2018-06-18 23:07:55
Document Index: 339527823

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1708', '§ 1708', '§ 1708', '§ 1708', '§ 1708', '§ 2255', '§ 1708', '§ 1708', '§ 1708', '§ 641', '§ 2106']

Tinder Vs United States - Citation 98797 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Tinder Vs. United States - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/98797
Case Number 345 U.S. 565
Appellant Tinder
.....section. p. 345 u. s. 569 . 193 f.2d 720, reversed. petitioner was convicted of mail theft in violation of 18 u.s.c. § 1708, and subsequently moved to vacate or correct the sentence. the district court denied petitioner's motion. the court of appeals affirmed. 193 f.2d 720. this court granted certiorari. 343 u.s. 976. reversed and remanded to the district court for correction of sentence, p. 345 u. s. 570 . page 345 u. s. 566 mr. justice reed delivered the opinion of the court. on september 13, 1950, petitioner pleaded guilty to a six-ount indictment charging the theft of six separate letters from the mailboxes of the six addressees in violation of 18 u.s.c. § 1708. petitioner was sentenced to three years' imprisonment on each count, the.....
Tinder v. United States - 345 U.S. 565 (1953)
U.S. Supreme Court Tinder v. United States, 345 U.S. 565 (1953)
Held: a defendant convicted in 1950 of theft from a mailbox of a letter not shown to have had a value of more than $100 was improperly sentenced to imprisonment for more than one year. Pp. 345 U. S. 566 -570.
(a) The words "article or thing" in the concluding proviso included letters; the Section does not distinguish between theft of mail and theft of an article or thing contained in a piece of mail. Pp. 345 U. S. 567 -569.
(b) The elimination of the concluding provision of § 1708 by the Act of July 1, 1952, 66 Stat. 314, is inapplicable to a prior conviction under that Section. P. 345 U. S. 569 .
Petitioner was convicted of mail theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708, and subsequently moved to vacate or correct the sentence. The District Court denied petitioner's motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 193 F.2d 720. This Court granted certiorari. 343 U.S. 976. Reversed and remanded to the District Court for correction of sentence, p. 345 U. S. 570 .
On September 13, 1950, petitioner pleaded guilty to a six-ount indictment charging the theft of six separate letters from the mailboxes of the six addressees in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708. Petitioner was sentenced to three years' imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. After serving almost a year of his term, petitioner, on August 3, 1951, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate or correct sentence on the ground that the indictment did not allege that any of the letters stolen from the mailboxes had a value of more than $100, hence that the indictment charged misdemeanors under § 1708, the maximum penalty for each of which was one year, instead of felonies for which the maximum penalty was five years. The District Court denied petitioner's motion, and the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. 193 F.2d 720, 722. Both of the courts below held that the misdemeanor provision of § 1708 applies only to thefts of "any article or thing" which in turn had been taken from a letter or package, and not to thefts of intact units of mail. As this result was in direct conflict with the position taken by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Armstrong v. United States, 187 F.2d 954, we granted certiorari to resolve that conflict. 343 U.S. 976. The statute in question appears in the margin. [ Footnote 1 ]
The Reviser's Note on this addition which accompanied the bill and explained the changes to Congress states that "[t]he smaller penalty for an offense involving $100 or less was added." (18 U.S.C. § 1708.) This note also called attention to similar adjustments of penalties in §§ 641 and 645, which relate to illegal abstractions of government records, vouchers and other things of value. Nothing was said of the distinction to which the Government would now have us accede. [ Footnote 2 ]
This Court has power to do justice as the case requires. [ Footnote 3 ] 28 U.S.C. § 2106. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the District Court to correct the sentence.
" CHANGES IN PUNISHMENT"
Patterson v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 600 , 294 U. S. 607 ; Minnesota v. National Tea Co., 309 U. S. 551 , 309 U. S. 555 ; Walling v. James v. Reuter, Inc., 321 U. S. 671 , 321 U. S. 676 .