Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
DE MAGGIO v. COXE, United States District Judge, 1934 — 70 F.2d 840 · caselaw · US
General
DE MAGGIO v. COXE, United States District Judge
70 F.2d 840·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1934
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
DE MAGGIO v. COXE, United States District Judge.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 21, 1934.
Before MANTON, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
On this application the defendant urges that the District Judge lacked jurisdiction to impose upon him a second and increased sentence contrary to his constitutional rights. He was charged with a violation of the Narcotic Act- and pleaded guilty, and on October 3, 1933, was sentenced. He was removed from the courtroom to the detention room adjoining, recalled to the courtroom, and thereupon the judge sentenced him and changed his sentence to two and a half years’ imprisonment. He is now imprisoned and detained under that sentence.
He had not been taken to a place of detention where he would commence service of his sentence when the alleged illegal sentence was imposed. Had he entered upon serving his first sentence, it could not have been increased (United States v. Benz, 282 U. S. 304, 51 S. Ct. 113, 75 L. Ed. 354) but could have been modified within the term by changing the place of imprisonment. Wall v. Aderhold, 51 F.(2d) 714 (D. C. Ga.). But, while awaiting removal to jail, he had not begun to serve his sentence. 18 USCA § 709 (a).
The application for leave to file a writ of mandamus in forma pauperis is denied.