Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2d 196
Clay appeals from an order of the lower court denying, without a hearing, a
motion by him under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255, to vacate and set aside his conviction
and sentence imposed for violations of the narcotics laws. The motion was
summarily denied upon the ground that the 'motion and the files and records of
the case conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief.'
The record discloses that appellant was charged in a three-count indictment and
in a one-count information with four separate illegal sales of narcotics in
violation of 26 U.S.C.A. 4705(a). The four counts were consolidated for trial
without objection but, shortly before the time set for trial, appellant withdrew
his pleas of not guilty and entered pleas of guilty to all four counts. Clay was
sentenced to imprisonment for a term of ten years on each of the four counts
with the sentences to run consecutively. This was Clay's third unsuccessful
attempt in the court below to invalidate the sentences imposed and is the second
appeal to this court.1
The only points raised on this appeal relate to the sufficiency of the indictment
and information, which appellant contends are legally insufficient because: (1)
In each of the four counts of the indictment and information the statutory
language 'Secretary or his delegate' is omitted; and (2) in each of such counts
the name of the person to whom the narcotics were alleged to have been sold is
not shown.
4
alleged is a factor 'central to every prosecution under the statute' and of which
the accused is entitled to be apprised by the indictment. * * *' (320 F.2d at
191). The case of Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 8
L.Ed.2d 240, was cited in support of this view. After giving careful
consideration to the Lauer and Russell decisions and for the reasons hereinafter
discussed, we reach a different conclusion on the question and therefore
respectfully decline to follow the Lauer case.
7
The elements of the statutory offenses with which appellant was charged under
section 4705(a) are as follows: (1) The selling, bartering, exchanging or giving
away narcotic drugs; (2) except in pursuance to a written order on a form issued
in blank by the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate. The statute makes no
provision or requirement with respect to the identity of the person to whom an
illegal sale is made and we must therefore conclude, as the court did in the
Lauer case, that the identity of such person is not an element of the offense.
Hence, the indictment and information in this case cannot be considered to be
defective because of a failure to allege the elements of the offense. Nor do we
think the indictment and information are defective on the ground that they
failed to apprise the appellant of what he must be prepared to meet at the trial.
Appellant did not request a trial, but rather entered pleas of guilty. And, in any
event, the record clearly discloses that appellant was fully aware of the nature
of the charges against him.
We conclude that the indictment and information in this case are sufficient
under the general principles of law by which they must be tested. Certainly,
there is nothing in the record before us to indicate that appellant was prejudiced
Affirmed.
Clay v. United States, 10 Cir., 303 F.2d 301, cert. denied 372 U.S. 970, 83 S.Ct.
1095, 10 L.Ed.2d 132
Braswell v. United States, 10 Cir., 224 F.2d 706, cert. denied, 350 U.S. 845, 76
S.Ct. 86, 100 L.Ed. 752; Jackson v. United States, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 181, 313
F.2d 572
Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 8 L.Ed.2d 240; United
States v. Debrow, 346 U.S. 374, 74 S.Ct. 113, 98 L.Ed. 92; Cefalu v. United
States, 10 Cir., 234 F.2d 522; Madsen v. United States, 10 Cir., 165 F.2d 507
Yates v. United States, 10 Cir., 316 F.2d 718; United States v. Roberts, 4 Cir.,
296 F.2d 198, cert. denied, 369 U.S. 867, 82 S.Ct. 1033, 8 L.Ed.2d 85
Crapo v. United States, 10 Cir., 100 F.2d 996; Fippin v. United States, 9 Cir.,
162 F.2d 128; United States v. Beck, 7 Cir., 118 F.2d 178, cert. denied, 313
U.S. 587, 61 S.Ct. 1121, 85 L.Ed. 1542; Finn v. United States, 4 Cir., 256 F.2d
304
Russell v. United States, supra, 369 U.S. at 764, 82 S.Ct. at 1047, 8 L.Ed.2d
240
'The Court: Well, you sold 800 dolophine tablets, didn't you, to a Federal man
for $125.00?'
'The Defendant: Yes, sir, I admit that.'