Hill v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Hill v. United States

75 A.2d 138, 1950 D.C. App. LEXIS 158

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 13, 1950

Docket928

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 75 A.2d 138 (Hill 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

Hill v. United States, 75 A.2d 138, 1950 D.C. App. LEXIS 158 (D.C. 1950).

Pincite

Opinions

CLAGETT, Associate Judge.

On prosecution by the United States appellant was convicted in the Criminal Branch of the Municipal Court of the offense of threats. Code 1940, 22 — 507. The statute provides that any person convicted of threats to do bodily harm shall be required to give bond to keep the peace for a period not exceeding six months, and in default of bond may be sentenced to imprisonment not exceeding six months. Appellant was convicted April 18 and was ordered to post a peace bond of $300 or to serve 60 days. In accordance with Municipal Court, Criminal Division, rule 9(c), an appeal bond of $300 was set, but the record shows appellant did not post either the peace bond or the appeal bond and was committed to jail. The case was argued on its merits in this court June 26.

The government on June 22 filed a suggestion of mootness, stating that the sentence here involved was completed on June 18, 1950. Appellant has now filed a reply thereto.

We agree that the case has become moot. In St. Pierre v. United States, 319 U.S. 41, 63 S.Ct. 910, 911, 87 L.Ed. 1199, petitioner had been sentenced to five months’ imprisonment by the trial court for contempt. Before certiorari was granted, petitioner had fully served his sentence. The Supreme Court in refusing to consider the merits of the appeal stated: “We are of opinion that the case is moot because, after petitioner’s service of his sentence and its expiration, there was no longer a subject matter on which the judgment of this Court could operate. A federal court is without ■ power to decide moot questions or to give advisory opinions which cannot affect the rights of the litigants in the case before it. * * * The sentence cannot be enlarged by this Court’s judgment, and reversal of the judgment below cannot operate to undo what has been done or restore to petitioner the penalty of the term of imprisonment which he has served.”

The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that the moral stigma of a judg[139]*139ment on a person’s reputation entitles a person to appeal, stating: “Petitioner also suggests that the judgment may impair his credibility as witness in any future legal proceeding. But the moral stigma of a judgment which no longer affects legal rights does not present a case or controversy for appellate review. Since the cause is moot, the writ will be dismissed.”¹

Appellant seeks to distinguish the St. Pierre case on the ground that since that case involved a sentence for contempt the defendant could have gained his release at any time by answering questions of the grand jury. Regardless, however, of the correctness of this contention, the fact remains that in both cases a jail sentence had been completed when the case reached the appellate court and that in such circumstances the Supreme Court decided that the case had become moot. The reasoning of the Supreme Court applies exactly to the present case.

The government mentions in its suggestion of mootness that when appellant was sentenced, on April 18 he was then serving a sentence imposed in another criminal case and that the judgment in the present case was not ordered to run consecutively with the prior case. Appellant in his reply brief also mentions that he was serving a sentence for another offense pending this appeal. But the record here makes no mention of any other case. In the absence of clear language to the contrary it is presumed sentences imposed on more than one offense at the same time or at different times will run concurrently.² It may well be that appellant would not have gained his liberty even had he posted an appeal bond in the present case, but it is still .true, as stated by the Supreme Court, that reversal of the judgment below, can not operate to undo what has been done or restore to petitioner the penalty of the term of imprisonment which he has served. It would hardly be argued by appellant that affirmation of the judgment below would result in his serving another sentence. We are in the same position as was the Supreme Court in the St. Pierre case when it stated: “Npr has petitioner shown that under either state or federal law further penalties or disabilities can be imposed on him as a result of the judgment which has now been satisfied.”

Appeal dismissed.

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

CLAGETT, Associate Judge.

On prosecution by the United States appellant was convicted in the Criminal Branch of the Municipal Court of the offense of threats. Code 1940, 22 — 507. The statute provides that any person convicted of threats to do bodily harm shall be required to give bond to keep the peace for a period not exceeding six months, and in default of bond may be sentenced to imprisonment not exceeding six months. Appellant was convicted April 18 and was ordered to post a peace bond of $300 or to serve 60 days. In accordance with Municipal Court, Criminal Division, rule 9(c), an appeal bond of $300 was set, but the record shows appellant did not post either the peace bond or the appeal bond and was committed to jail. The case was argued on its merits in this court June 26.

The government on June 22 filed a suggestion of mootness, stating that the sentence here involved was completed on June 18, 1950. Appellant has now filed a reply thereto.

We agree that the case has become moot. In St. Pierre v. United States, 319 U.S. 41, 63 S.Ct. 910, 911, 87 L.Ed. 1199, petitioner had been sentenced to five months’ imprisonment by the trial court for contempt. Before certiorari was granted, petitioner had fully served his sentence. The Supreme Court in refusing to consider the merits of the appeal stated: “We are of opinion that the case is moot because, after petitioner’s service of his sentence and its expiration, there was no longer a subject matter on which the judgment of this Court could operate. A federal court is without ■ power to decide moot questions or to give advisory opinions which cannot affect the rights of the litigants in the case before it. * * * The sentence cannot be enlarged by this Court’s judgment, and reversal of the judgment below cannot operate to undo what has been done or restore to petitioner the penalty of the term of imprisonment which he has served.”

The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that the moral stigma of a judg[139]*139ment on a person’s reputation entitles a person to appeal, stating: “Petitioner also suggests that the judgment may impair his credibility as witness in any future legal proceeding. But the moral stigma of a judgment which no longer affects legal rights does not present a case or controversy for appellate review. Since the cause is moot, the writ will be dismissed.”¹

Appellant seeks to distinguish the St. Pierre case on the ground that since that case involved a sentence for contempt the defendant could have gained his release at any time by answering questions of the grand jury. Regardless, however, of the correctness of this contention, the fact remains that in both cases a jail sentence had been completed when the case reached the appellate court and that in such circumstances the Supreme Court decided that the case had become moot. The reasoning of the Supreme Court applies exactly to the present case.

The government mentions in its suggestion of mootness that when appellant was sentenced, on April 18 he was then serving a sentence imposed in another criminal case and that the judgment in the present case was not ordered to run consecutively with the prior case. Appellant in his reply brief also mentions that he was serving a sentence for another offense pending this appeal. But the record here makes no mention of any other case. In the absence of clear language to the contrary it is presumed sentences imposed on more than one offense at the same time or at different times will run concurrently.² It may well be that appellant would not have gained his liberty even had he posted an appeal bond in the present case, but it is still .true, as stated by the Supreme Court, that reversal of the judgment below, can not operate to undo what has been done or restore to petitioner the penalty of the term of imprisonment which he has served. It would hardly be argued by appellant that affirmation of the judgment below would result in his serving another sentence. We are in the same position as was the Supreme Court in the St. Pierre case when it stated: “Npr has petitioner shown that under either state or federal law further penalties or disabilities can be imposed on him as a result of the judgment which has now been satisfied.”

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 A.2d 138, 1950 D.C. App. LEXIS 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-united-states-dc-1950.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack