From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Nov 18, 1963
323 F.2d 864 (10th Cir. 1963)

Opinion

No. 7364.

October 10, 1963. Rehearing Denied November 18, 1963.

David L. Kofoed, Denver, Colo., for appellant.

Phillips Breckinridge, Asst. U.S. Atty. (John M. Imel, U.S. Atty., with him on brief), for appellee.

Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.


This is an appeal from an Order of the District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, denying appellant-Jones' motion for reduction of sentence after affirmance on direct appeal, and after the same had become final. See: Jones v. United States, 10 Cir., 299 F.2d 661. The trial Court granted leave to appeal in forma pauperis, and counsel was appointed for appellant. In this collateral proceedings, Jones does not attack the legality of his conviction or sentence, but seeks only to modify the severity of his punishment, on the ground that the imposition of multiple sentences totalling forty (40) years was harsh and excessive, or cruel and unusual.

It is now well settled that appellate courts will not review a sentence as cruel and unusual on direct appeal, if it is within the limits fixed by a valid statute. See: Smith v. United States, 10 Cir., 273 F.2d 462; and McMurray v. United States, 10 Cir., 298 F.2d 619, cert. den., 369 U.S. 860, 82 S.Ct. 950, 8 L.Ed.2d 18. Certainly, we are not empowered to do so on collateral attack. See: Richardson v. United States, 10 Cir., 285 F.2d 751.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Jones v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Nov 18, 1963
323 F.2d 864 (10th Cir. 1963)
Case details for

Jones v. United States

Case Details

Full title:Donald David JONES, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

Date published: Nov 18, 1963

Citations

323 F.2d 864 (10th Cir. 1963)

Citing Cases

Welch v. United States

Since the sentence is well within the statutory limit this court will not interfere with the sensitive…

United States v. Slawson

It is elementary that ordinarily a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal nor considered cruel and unusual…