Corbin v. United States

481 A.2d 1301, 1984 D.C. App. LEXIS 474
CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals
DecidedSeptember 6, 1984
Docket83-1381
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 481 A.2d 1301 (Corbin v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Corbin v. United States, 481 A.2d 1301, 1984 D.C. App. LEXIS 474 (D.C. 1984).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Corbin pled guilty to possession of phen-cyclidine (PCP) and cannabis (marijuana). He was sentenced to consecutive prison terms on each count despite his argument that concurrent sentences were required because the “counts arose from one course of conduct.” He contends that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. We affirm.

Appellant was arrested on an unrelated charge. When he was searched, an envelope was found in his possession containing three tinfoils of marijuana and some loose marijuana. The marijuana in the tinfoils was “laced” with PCP. On this appeal, Corbin contends that the Uniform Controlled Substance Act (UCSA), D.C. Code § 33-541(c) (1983 Supp.) makes the possession of marijuana “laced” with PCP one offense for sentencing purposes. 1 He refers us specifically to § 33-516(4) which interdicts possession of “any material, compound, mixture or preparation which contains any quantity” of certain substances. We reject this contention. The plain language of the statute, read as a whole, as well as the legislative history, makes clear that the legislature intended to and did make the possession of each prohibited substance a separate offense. The language of § 33-516(4) makes the admixture of a non-prohibited substance with a prohibited substance a criminal offense. See generally Carpenter v. United States, 475 A.2d 369 (D.C.1984); Lawrence v. United States, 473 A.2d 373 (D.C.1984). See also United States v. Davis, 656 F.2d 153 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 930, 102 S.Ct. 1979, 72 L.Ed.2d 446 (1982); State v. Adams, 364 A.2d 1237 (Del.Super.Ct.1976); State v. Williams, 542 S.W.2d 3 (Mo.App. *1303 1976); State v. Collier, 567 S.W.2d 165 (Tenn.Sup.Ct.1978).

Affirmed.

1

. Although Corbin only attacks the consecutive sentences, if his contentions were valid, he would be entitled to have one count of his conviction vacated since he would have committed only one offense.

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

Related

Jose Carcamo v. Loretta Lynch
648 F. App'x 306 (Fourth Circuit, 2016)
Plummer v. United States
43 A.3d 260 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2012)
Wooley v. United States
697 A.2d 777 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1997)
Arrington v. United States
585 A.2d 1342 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1991)
Allen v. United States
580 A.2d 653 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1990)
Bean v. United States
576 A.2d 187 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1990)
Poteat v. United States
559 A.2d 334 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1989)
Smith v. United States
549 A.2d 1119 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
481 A.2d 1301, 1984 D.C. App. LEXIS 474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corbin-v-united-states-dc-1984.