United States v. Joseph Jefferson, Jr.

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Joseph Jefferson, Jr.

510 F.2d 445, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 16505

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 20, 1975

Docket74--1469

StatusPublished

This text of 510 F.2d 445 (United States v. Joseph Jefferson, Jr.) 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. Joseph Jefferson, Jr., 510 F.2d 445, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 16505 (4th Cir. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal raises the question whether, after determining that its original sentence was invalid, the district court properly resentenced the appellant. Joseph Jefferson, Jr., was initially sentenced to two years imprisonment for illegal possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony, a violation of 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a). After his conviction was affirmed on appeal, Jefferson submitted a motion for correction of sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In the petition, he alleged that at least two of his three prior felony convictions considered by the sentencing judge were illegal. The district court, considering that the petition had merit under United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972), scheduled the case for a hearing. The transcript of that hearing reflects that the district judge found that the invalid convictions “should not have been considered by the Court.” The judge thereupon proceeded to resentence Jefferson., with the statement that “I am treating them [the challenged convictions] as being invalid for the purpose of sentencing.” A new sentence of two years was imposed, with the qualification that parole eligibility was to be determined pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4208(a)(2).

Jefferson contends that the lower court erred by not reducing the length of his sentence. We disagree. We find nothing in Tucker or Brown v. United States, 4 Cir., 483 F.2d 116, which requires that a new sentence be more lenient than the sentence vacated. All that is mandated is that the sentence be reevaluated without consideration given to the unconstitutionally obtained prior convictions. Here, the district court specifi *446 cally disclaimed any reliance on Jefferson’s previous convictions when it imposed the new sentence. We conclude, therefore, that Tucker and Brown were given proper effect.

Accordingly, the sentence imposed is upheld.

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

PER CURIAM:

This appeal raises the question whether, after determining that its original sentence was invalid, the district court properly resentenced the appellant. Joseph Jefferson, Jr., was initially sentenced to two years imprisonment for illegal possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony, a violation of 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a). After his conviction was affirmed on appeal, Jefferson submitted a motion for correction of sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In the petition, he alleged that at least two of his three prior felony convictions considered by the sentencing judge were illegal. The district court, considering that the petition had merit under United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972), scheduled the case for a hearing. The transcript of that hearing reflects that the district judge found that the invalid convictions “should not have been considered by the Court.” The judge thereupon proceeded to resentence Jefferson., with the statement that “I am treating them [the challenged convictions] as being invalid for the purpose of sentencing.” A new sentence of two years was imposed, with the qualification that parole eligibility was to be determined pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4208(a)(2).

Jefferson contends that the lower court erred by not reducing the length of his sentence. We disagree. We find nothing in Tucker or Brown v. United States, 4 Cir., 483 F.2d 116, which requires that a new sentence be more lenient than the sentence vacated. All that is mandated is that the sentence be reevaluated without consideration given to the unconstitutionally obtained prior convictions. Here, the district court specifi *446 cally disclaimed any reliance on Jefferson’s previous convictions when it imposed the new sentence. We conclude, therefore, that Tucker and Brown were given proper effect.

Accordingly, the sentence imposed is upheld.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

510 F.2d 445, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 16505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-joseph-jefferson-jr-ca4-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack