Arnold L. Campbell v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Arnold L. Campbell v. United States

258 F.2d 160, 103 U.S. App. D.C. 308, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4604

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 26, 1958

Docket14309-14311

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 258 F.2d 160 (Arnold L. Campbell v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arnold L. Campbell v. United States, 258 F.2d 160, 103 U.S. App. D.C. 308, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4604 (D.C. Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

These are appeals' from the denial without a hearing of a motion which had been filed in the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1952). The motion attacked the validity of certain sentences which had been imposed upon appellant, as now explained. He had been indicted in case No. 804-54 on two counts for robbery, in violation of section 22-2901, D. C.Code (1951),¹ in case No. 805-54 on four counts for robbery in violation of the same statute, and in case No. 806-54 for attempted robbery in violation of section 22-2902, D.C.Code (1951),² on one count. He entered pleas of guilty and was sentenced on the first indictment from two to six years, on each of the four counts of the second indictment from one to three years, these sentences to take effect consecutively with one another and consecutively also with the sentence on the first indictment, and on [161]*161the third indictment from one to three years, concurrently with the sentences already referred to.

His motion is to the effect, inter alia, that he actually pleaded to only one count in each of the three indictments. An examination of the transcript of the proceedings at the time he entered his pleas convinces us that he is correct in this respect. The result is that the sentence on the last indictment of one count (No. 806-54) should not be disturbed; the sentence on the second indictment (No. 805-54) should be set aside except as to one sentence from one to three years; and, as to the first indictment (No. 804-54), the District Court may resentence appellant if it so desires since the present sentence under that indictment of two to six years is a general sentence covering two counts, and might have been less if imposed with respect to only one count.³

It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

These are appeals' from the denial without a hearing of a motion which had been filed in the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1952). The motion attacked the validity of certain sentences which had been imposed upon appellant, as now explained. He had been indicted in case No. 804-54 on two counts for robbery, in violation of section 22-2901, D. C.Code (1951),¹ in case No. 805-54 on four counts for robbery in violation of the same statute, and in case No. 806-54 for attempted robbery in violation of section 22-2902, D.C.Code (1951),² on one count. He entered pleas of guilty and was sentenced on the first indictment from two to six years, on each of the four counts of the second indictment from one to three years, these sentences to take effect consecutively with one another and consecutively also with the sentence on the first indictment, and on [161]*161the third indictment from one to three years, concurrently with the sentences already referred to.

His motion is to the effect, inter alia, that he actually pleaded to only one count in each of the three indictments. An examination of the transcript of the proceedings at the time he entered his pleas convinces us that he is correct in this respect. The result is that the sentence on the last indictment of one count (No. 806-54) should not be disturbed; the sentence on the second indictment (No. 805-54) should be set aside except as to one sentence from one to three years; and, as to the first indictment (No. 804-54), the District Court may resentence appellant if it so desires since the present sentence under that indictment of two to six years is a general sentence covering two counts, and might have been less if imposed with respect to only one count.³

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 F.2d 160, 103 U.S. App. D.C. 308, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-l-campbell-v-united-states-cadc-1958.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack