Court Opinion

ID: 9447781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:44:21.137626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:11.460307
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
PER CURIAM.
In a petition for rehearing the appellant asserts (a) that he was riot permitted to testify at his trial, (b) that he was convicted of five offenses, one for each of the money orders, although there was only one transportation, and (c) that there was no search warrant issued as a predicate for the search which resulted in the finding of the evidence upon which he was convicted.
 The appellant was represented at his trial and on appeal, although not on this application for rehearing, by counsel. The matters here raised were not asserted on the appeal. Neither is there basis for them in the record. There was no showing in the record that the failure of the appellant to testify was anything but voluntary. On the appeal it was urged that “the search warrant was illegally obtained,” thus recognizing that a warrant was issued, and this fact was shown by testimony in the cause. Since the transportation of each of the money orders was a separate offense, the contention that there were multiple sentences for a single transportation cannot prevail. Carlson v. United States, 8 Cir., 1960, 274 F.2d 694; Heideman v. United States, 8 Cir., 1960, 281 F.2d 805; United States v. Taylor, 2 Cir., 1954, 210 F.2d 110.
The petition for rehearing is Denied.