United States v. James Dale Patmore, 475 F.2d 752 (10th Cir. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. James Dale Patmore, 475 F.2d 752 (10th Cir. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events across 18 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. James M. Lewis Debra Faye Lewis, 92 F.3d 1371 (5th Cir. 1996)
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973 1999 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#8 18 U.S.C. § 113 cited 16× in this case · 3,081 total citations of statute
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 753 Limiting assimilation crimes act application when federal statute exists11 citing caseswhere the precise act prohibited by the state statute is defined and prohibited by a federal statute, the Assimilative Crimes Act is not to be used and the government is to proceed under the applicable federal statute1 citing court put it this way
  • United States v. James M. Lewis Debra Faye Lewis, 92 F.3d 1371 (5th Cir. 1996).published
    See, e.g., United States v. Hall, 979 F.2d 320, 323 (3d Cir.1992); United States v. Lavender, 602 F.2d 639, 640-41 (4th Cir.1979); United States v. Chaussee, 536 F.2d 637, 644-45 (7th Cir.1976); United States v. Word, 519 F.2d 612, 618-19…
  • United States v. Lewis, No. 95-30860 (5th Cir. Aug. 19, 1996).published
    See , e.g., United States v. Hall, 979 F.2d 320, 323 (3d Cir. 1992); United States v. Lavender, 602 F.2d 639, 640-41 (4th Cir. 1979); United States v. Chaussee, 536 F.2d 637, 644-45 (7th Cir. 1976); United States v. Word, 519 F.2d 612 , 61…
  • United States v. Marvin Goodman, A/K/A Kenzie, 64 F.3d 660 (4th Cir. 1995).unpublished
    The Act has no application if such acts or omissions are made penal by federal statute. 29 United States v. Patmore, 475 F.2d 752, 753 (10th Cir.1973); see also United States v. Perez, 956 F.2d 1098, 1101 (11th Cir.1992) ("The ACA ... may…
  • United States v. Harry Lynn Hall, 979 F.2d 320 (3d Cir. 1992).published
    See Williams v. United States, 327 U.S. 711, 717 , 66 S.Ct. 778, 781 , 90 L.Ed. 962 (1946); United States v. Patmore, 475 F.2d 752, 753 (10th Cir.1973); see also United States v. Altman, 931 F.2d 898 (table), 1991 WL 67887 , *3-4, 1991 U.S…
  • United States v. James K. Mariea & Jerry M. Smith, United States of Am. v. James K. Mariea, 795 F.2d 1094 (1st Cir. 1986).published
    See, e.g., Williams v. United States, 327 U.S. 711, 717 , 66 S.Ct. 778, 781 , 90 L.Ed. 962 (1946); United States v. Butler, 541 F.2d 730, 732, 734 (8th Cir.1976); United States v. Patmore, 475 F.2d 752, 753 (10th Cir.1973); Fields v. Unite…
  • United States v. Smith, 614 F. Supp. 454 (D. Me. 1985).published
    United States v. Best, 573 F.2d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.1978); United States v. Patmore, 475 F.2d 752, 753 (10th Cir.1972).
  • United States v. Eades, 455 F. Supp. 436 (D. Md. 1978).published
    Other courts have held that the Assimilative Crimes Act prohibits resort to state law only where the “precise conduct has been made penal by federal law.” United States v. Big Crow, 523 F.2d 955 , 958 n.4 (8th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424…
  • United States v. Merle Lyle Chaussee, 536 F.2d 637 (7th Cir. 1976).published
    The defendant filed a post-trial motion for correction of excessive sentence on the basis that he should have been sentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 113 (c) 7 which makes assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to do bodily harm without just…
  • United States v. Harry Dino Word A/K/A Harry Dino Hurd, 519 F.2d 612 (8th Cir. 1975).published
    (where the precise act prohibited by the state statute is defined and prohibited by a federal statute, the Assimilative Crimes Act is not to be used and the government is to proceed under the applicable federal statute)
  • United States v. Bradley J. Devenport, 131 F.3d 604 (7th Cir. 1997).published
    See United States v. Chaussee, 536 F.2d 637, 643-44 (7th Cir.1976) (“[T]he purpose of the Assimilative Crimes Act ... is to supplement the Criminal Code of the United States by adopting state criminal statutes relating to acts or omissions…
Show 1 more citing case
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
James Dale PATMORE, Defendant-Appellant
72-1402.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Mar 26, 1973.
Published opinion
475 F.2d 752
1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10911
Edward H. Funston, Asst. U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan. (Robert J. Roth, U. S. Atty., and Richard L. Meyer, Asst. U, S. Atty., Topeka, Kan., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee., Thomas M. Dawson, Leavenworth, Kan., for defendant-appellant.
Lewis, Pickett, McWilliams.
Cited by 28 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 79%
Citer courts: W.D. Louisiana (1)
Reporter's Syllabus editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

Edward H. Funston, Asst. U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan. (Robert J. Roth, U. S. Atty., and Richard L. Meyer, Asst. U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

Thomas M. Dawson, Leavenworth, Kan., for defendant-appellant.

Before LEWIS, Chief Judge, and PICKETT and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PICKETT, Circuit Judge.

Lead Opinion

PICKETT, Circuit Judge.

While imprisoned at the Leavenworth, Kansas, federal penitentiary, Patmore was accused of stabbing another inmate. He was indicted in federal court for aggravated battery in violation of Kan. Stat.Ann.1971 Supp. 21-3414(c), a class C felony, through the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13, (1970).[1] During the course of the trial Patmore entered a plea of guilty to aggravated assault, a lesser included offense and a violation of Kan.Stat.Ann.1971 Supp. 21-3410(a). He was sentenced to serve a three to ten year sentence under Kan. Stat.Ann.1971 Supp. 21-4501 (d).

Patmore’s only contention on appeal is that there is a federal assault statute, 18 U.S.C. § 113(c) (1970), that defines the same offense as the Kansas statute to which he pleaded guilty, and that he should have been sentenced under the federal statute, which provides for a maximum penalty of five years. Patmore’s “Motion to Correct Excessive Sentence” was overruled. The trial court held that the state and federal statutes were not identical since the federal statute required proof of specific intent to do bodily harm, whereas the Kansas statute made no mention of specific intent.[2] We hold that the precise acts to which Patmore pleaded guilty were made penal by the federal statute defining assault, 18 U.S.C. § 113(c) (1970), and cannot be redefined by application of the Assimilative Crimes Act.

The crime of assault is defined in Kan.Stat.Ann.1971 Supp. 21-3408 as “an intentional threat or attempt to do bodily harm to another. . . .” This language, when read in conjunction with Kan.Stat.Ann.1971 Supp. 21-3410(a), is the equivalent'of 18 U.S.C. § 113(c) (1970) .

The purpose of the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C; § 13 (1970), is to supplement the Criminal Code of the United States by adopting state criminal statutes relating to acts or omissions committed within areas over which the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction and which are “not made punishable by any enactment of Congress.” The Act has no application if such acts or omissions are made penal by federal statute. United States v. Sharpnack, 355 U.S. 286, 78 S.Ct. 291, 2 L.Ed.2d 282 (1958); Williams v. United States, 327 U.S. 711, 66 S.Ct. 778, 90 L.Ed. 962 (1946); Dunaway v. United States, 170 F.2d 11 (10th Cir. 1948); Fields v. United States, 438 F.2d 205 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 907, 91 S.Ct. 2214, 29 L.Ed.2d 684 (1971) . In the instant case, Patmore pleaded guilty to unlawfully assaulting or striking at another with a deadly weapon, which is a class D felony under the Kansas statute. AÍthoügh the crime may be within the definition of the Kansas statute, it is punishable under the provisions qf 18 U.S.C. § 113(c) (1970), which prevail. Hockenberry v. United States, 422 F.2d 171 (9th Cir. 1970). A federal criminal statute -may not be enlárged or diminished by a state statute. Williams v. United States, 327 U.S. 711, 718, 66 S.Ct. 778, 90 L.Ed. 962 (1946).

The judgment and sentence is set aside, and the cause remanded for sen[*754] tencing under 18 U.S.C. § 113(c) (1970).

1

The charging language of the indictment is that Patmore “wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously committed an act of aggravated battery against and upon John Wesley Fuller by means of a deadly weapon, to-wit: a knife, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 7, 13, and K.S.A. 21-3414 (c).”

2

18 U.S.C. § 113(c) (1970) :

“Whoever ... is guilty of an assault shall be punished as follows :
(c) Assault with a dangerous weapon, with intent to do bodily harm, and without just cause or excuse, by imprisonment for not more than five years.

Kan.Stat.Ann.1971 Supp. 21-3410 (a) :

“Aggravated assault is:
(a) Unlawfully assaulting or striking at another with a deadly weapon. . . .”

Concurrence

LEWIS, Chief Judge

(concurring in the result).

I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion but only because the penalty for assault under 18 U.S.C. § 113(c) is less severe than the penalty under Kan.Stat.Ann. §§ 21-3410(a), 21-4501 (d).[1] The relief given is appropriate under the posture of the case as presented to us and consistent with fundamental fairness. However the rationale of the main opinion would appear to require imposition of the federal sentence in any case where a plea (as here) or a conviction occurs for a state defined included offense that falls within the bounds of a federal statutory offense. I would hold open for future consideration the nature of appropriate relief or sentence when and if a case arises where the federal sentence is more severe.

1

This analysis does not consider the possible imposition of a fine up to $1,000.00 under 18 U.S.C. § 113(c).