United States v. Bunch

80 F. App'x 846
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 14, 2003
Docket03-4335
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 80 F. App'x 846 (United States v. Bunch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Bunch, 80 F. App'x 846 (4th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Calvin Bunch pleaded guilty to six counts of bank robbery, six counts of armed bank robbery, and six counts of using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence. The convictions stem from six bank robberies that occurred in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, between August 1 and September 17, 2001. On appeal, Bunch contends that because bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2000), is a lesser included offense of armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) (2000), the bank robbery convictions violate the Double Jeopardy Clause and should be vacated. We agree and remand so that the district court may vacate the bank robbery convictions and associated sentences.

The United States contends that Bunch’s guilty plea waived his right to raise the above claim on appeal. A valid guilty plea waives all antecedent nonjurisdictional defects. Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973). Here, the attack is on Bunch’s sentence, which was imposed after entry of the guilty plea. Hence, by pleading guilty, Bunch did not waive his right to bring the instant claim.

The Double Jeopardy Clause forbids “multiple punishments for the same offense.” North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 (1969). Bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), is a lesser included offense of armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d). United States v. Whitley, 759 F.2d 327, 331 (4th Cir.1985) (en banc). In light of the double jeopardy violation in this case, we remand so that the district court may vacate the bank robbery convictions and associated sentences. See id.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before us and argument would not aid the decisional process.

REMANDED.

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

Related

United States v. Bunch
154 F. App'x 328 (Fourth Circuit, 2005)
Slavek v. Hinkle
359 F. Supp. 2d 473 (E.D. Virginia, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
80 F. App'x 846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-bunch-ca4-2003.