The opinion of the court was delivered by: KRAFT
The petitioner was indicted and convicted upon two counts of a four count indictment charging him and three others with conspiracy and violations of the bank robbery statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a), (d).
Count I, in part, charged the petitioner with conspiracy
"* * * to commit an offense against the United States by assaulting and placing in jeopardy by use of a.22 caliber pistol the lives of bank employees and others while committing an offense in violation of Title 18, United States Code 2113(a), to wit: while taking money, by force and violence, from an employee of a Savings and Loan Association insured by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation in violation of 18 United States Code Section 2113(d)."
Count II charged the petitioner with taking $2,733.90 by force and violence and assaulting and jeopardizing the life of a bank teller in the course of the taking in violation of § 2113(d).
Briefly stated, the petitioner contends that the indictment is fatally defective because all of the Counts charging violations of §§ 2113(a) and (d) omit the "essential elements of 2113(a)" which is "larceny."
He relies strongly on United States v. Roach, 321 F.2d 1 (3 Cir. 1963) which was an appeal from a conviction on four counts of an indictment charging certain offenses under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113.
The petitioner's reliance is misplaced because in Roach the defendant was charged under § 2113(a) with unlawful entry to commit larceny, while in this case there was no such charge made, but rather, the indictable offense was robbery.
18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a)
in two distinct paragraphs defines the two separate offenses of robbery and unlawful entry. Prince v. United States, 352 U.S. 322, 326, 77 S. Ct. 403, 1 L. Ed. 2d 370 (1957). It is clear that the previously quoted portion of the indictment,
sufficiently apprised the petitioner of the essential elements of the crime of robbery as set forth in the first paragraph of subsection (a).
We conclude that the petition is without merit.
Accordingly, we enter the following.
Now, this 4th day of April, 1967, it is ordered that the motion of John Lester to vacate and set aside his sentence under ...