Hankins v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Hankins v. United States

120 A.2d 590, 1956 D.C. App. LEXIS 185

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 17, 1956

Docket1744

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 120 A.2d 590 (Hankins 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

Hankins v. United States, 120 A.2d 590, 1956 D.C. App. LEXIS 185 (D.C. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

QUINN, Associate Judge.

On January 5, 1955, after conviction appellant was sentenced by the trial court on a charge of possessing and selling obscene literature and pictures in violation of D.C. Code 1951, § 22-2001. He was given a sentence of one year and a fine of $300 and in default of payment was to be imprisoned for an additional year. The penalty provided for this offense is a fine of not less than $50 nor more than $500, or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. Sections 11-606 and 11-616 also provide that in all cases where the court shall impose a fine, it may, in default of payment, commit the defendant for such term as it thinks proper, not to exceed one year.

There is no contention that defendant was denied any constitutional right, that the court was without jurisdiction to impose the sentence, or as to other matters which could have been raised on appeal. From the record it appears that defendant’s only contention is that the sentence imposed in default of payment of the fine was too severe and he requests this court to reduce it to ninety days. This we cannot do. As stated in Peeples v. District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 75 A.2d 845, the statute gives broad discretion in imposing imprisonment in default of payment of fine. From a review of the record we fail to find any abuse of this discretion.

Affirmed.

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

QUINN, Associate Judge.

On January 5, 1955, after conviction appellant was sentenced by the trial court on a charge of possessing and selling obscene literature and pictures in violation of D.C. Code 1951, § 22-2001. He was given a sentence of one year and a fine of $300 and in default of payment was to be imprisoned for an additional year. The penalty provided for this offense is a fine of not less than $50 nor more than $500, or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. Sections 11-606 and 11-616 also provide that in all cases where the court shall impose a fine, it may, in default of payment, commit the defendant for such term as it thinks proper, not to exceed one year.

There is no contention that defendant was denied any constitutional right, that the court was without jurisdiction to impose the sentence, or as to other matters which could have been raised on appeal. From the record it appears that defendant’s only contention is that the sentence imposed in default of payment of the fine was too severe and he requests this court to reduce it to ninety days. This we cannot do. As stated in Peeples v. District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 75 A.2d 845, the statute gives broad discretion in imposing imprisonment in default of payment of fine. From a review of the record we fail to find any abuse of this discretion.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.2d 590, 1956 D.C. App. LEXIS 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hankins-v-united-states-dc-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack