Case Name: Gerald Layton LAVELL, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1963-11-05
Citations: 324 F.2d 232
Docket Number: No. 18338
Parties: Gerald Layton LAVELL, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 324
Pages: 232–233

Head Matter:
Gerald Layton LAVELL, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 18338.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
Nov. 5, 1963.
James W. Stewart, San Jose, Cal., for appellant.
Sidney I. Lezak, U. S. Atty., and William B. Borgeson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Portland, Or., for appellee.
Before CHAMBERS, POPE and MERRILL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is vacated for the reason that it incorrectly states the offenses for which Lavell was convicted. The indictment and the jury verdict clearly indicate that defendant was convicted under one conspiracy count and under one substantive count; not two conspiracy counts.
We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a continuance and that its remarks during the course of the trial were not prejudicial to appellant.
The sentence as to count one (upon which the evidence must be admitted to be adequate) is clearly above the limit permitted by 18 U.S.C. § 371. We do not reach the question of adequacy of the evidence on count three. Normally, under Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263, 49 S.Ct. 268, 73 L.Ed. 692, if the concurrent sentences were within permissible limits, one good count would result in affirmance.
Upon resentencing, the court can eliminate the objection that defendant was not expressly offered new counsel. At this time, we do not pass on the point.
We cannot agree with appellant that a new trial is required.
The case is remanded to the district court.