From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Wertman

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Oct 19, 1973
485 F.2d 566 (5th Cir. 1973)

Summary

holding the federal courts follow federal sentencing procedures when deciding cases under the Assimilative Crimes Act

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Martinez

Opinion

No. 73-1968.

October 19, 1973.

James C. Truett (Court-appointed), Tallahassee, Fla., for defendant-appellant.

William H. Stafford, Jr., U.S. Atty., J. Worth Owen, Asst. U.S. Atty., Pensacola, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

Before TUTTLE, BELL and GOLDBERG, Circuit Judges.


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. 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.

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."

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 court 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 judgment of conviction is affirmed.


Summaries of

United States v. Wertman

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Oct 19, 1973
485 F.2d 566 (5th Cir. 1973)

holding the federal courts follow federal sentencing procedures when deciding cases under the Assimilative Crimes Act

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Martinez
Case details for

United States v. Wertman

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. DONALD WILIAM WERTMAN…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Oct 19, 1973

Citations

485 F.2d 566 (5th Cir. 1973)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Martinez

Although Texas state law governs whether Lyda waived her statutory right to concurrent sentences, federal law…

State v. DeSchepper

Thus, the issue regarding the veracity of the facts constituting the alibi defense was not necessarily…