George E. Jalbert v. District of Columbia

D.C. Circuit

George E. Jalbert v. District of Columbia

387 F.2d 233, 128 U.S. App. D.C. 275, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6085

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 8, 1967

Docket20324

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 387 F.2d 233 (George E. Jalbert v. District of Columbia) 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

George E. Jalbert v. District of Columbia, 387 F.2d 233, 128 U.S. App. D.C. 275, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6085 (D.C. Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These appellants were involved in the incident which we depicted and discussed in Feeley v. District of Columbia, — U.S.App.D.C. —, 387 F.2d 216, decided May 22, 1967. These appellants, however, were charged in two counts, one under Title 22, Section 1107, of the D.C. Code, and the other under Section 1121 of that Title. Two of the defendants (Jalbert and Flenner) were convicted on both counts; all were found guilty on the Section 1121 count. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals 1 set aside the convictions under Section 1107 for lack of evidence of loud and boisterous conduct. It affirmed the convictions under Section 1121 bút, for lack of allocution, remanded for resentencing, directing, however, that the new sentences be governed by Section 3111.

■ The same considerations which were applied by us in Feeley apply here, and a similar order will be entered here.

Judgment vacated and ease remanded.

1

. Jalbert v. District of Columbia, D.C.App., 221 A.2d 94 (1966).

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

PER CURIAM.

These appellants were involved in the incident which we depicted and discussed in Feeley v. District of Columbia, — U.S.App.D.C. —, 387 F.2d 216, decided May 22, 1967. These appellants, however, were charged in two counts, one under Title 22, Section 1107, of the D.C. Code, and the other under Section 1121 of that Title. Two of the defendants (Jalbert and Flenner) were convicted on both counts; all were found guilty on the Section 1121 count. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals 1 set aside the convictions under Section 1107 for lack of evidence of loud and boisterous conduct. It affirmed the convictions under Section 1121 bút, for lack of allocution, remanded for resentencing, directing, however, that the new sentences be governed by Section 3111.

■ The same considerations which were applied by us in Feeley apply here, and a similar order will be entered here.

Judgment vacated and ease remanded.

1

. Jalbert v. District of Columbia, D.C.App., 221 A.2d 94 (1966).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

387 F.2d 233, 128 U.S. App. D.C. 275, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6085, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-e-jalbert-v-district-of-columbia-cadc-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack