Barringer v. United States, 21020.

Decision Date12 March 1968
Docket NumberNo. 21020.,21020.
Citation130 US App. DC 186,399 F.2d 557
PartiesJohn L. BARRINGER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Mr. J. Bruce Kellison, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court) for appellant. Mr. Francis T. Coleman, Jr., Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellant.

Mr. James E. Kelley, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker and Nicholas Nunzio, Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the brief, for appellee.

Before WRIGHT, McGOWAN and TAMM, Circuit Judges.

Certiorari Denied January 20, 1969. See 89 S.Ct. 697.

PER CURIAM:

With the help of an accomplice, appellant, armed with a gun, entered a corner grocery store where they confronted the proprietor and his wife with the gun. They obtained $15.00 from the proprietor's pocket, and $35.00 from the cash register, $19.00 of which was delivered by the wife at the husband's direction. In the course of trying to effect his escape in the street outside the store after the robbery was completed, appellant shot and wounded a policeman.

The indictment charged, in separate counts, robbery of the owner and robbery of his wife. It also contained two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon on the proprietor and his wife, assault on a member of the police force with a dangerous weapon, assault with intent to kill, malicious destruction of another's movable property, and the carrying of a concealed weapon. Upon conviction on all counts, an intricate pattern of consecutive and concurrent sentences was imposed, resulting in a total sentence of from 12 to 36 years.

The only serious questions put forward on this appeal relate to the robbery convictions. It is urged, first, that the proof justified conviction of robbery only in the case of the proprietor. Our examination of the record, however, indicates that the record supports conviction for robbing the wife as well. The second issue is that of whether consecutive sentences could be validly imposed in respect of these two counts. Unless remanded for resentencing, see Davenport v. United States, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 344, 353 F.2d 882 (1965), the allowance of this claim of error would result in a total sentence of from 9 to 27 years.

We are not persuaded that the rule of lenity necessitates the invalidation of these consecutive sentences. Appellant has placed primary reliance on Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81, 75 S.Ct. 620, 99 L.Ed. 905 (1955), where the Supreme Court nullified...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • U.S. v. Marzano
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 28 Junio 1976
    ...U.S. 625, 35 S.Ct. 710, 59 L.Ed. 1151 (1915), cutting multiple mail bags taken from the same railroad car; Barringer v. United States, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 186, 399 F.2d 557 (1968), cert. denied,393 U.S. 1057, 89 S.Ct. 697, 21 L.Ed.2d 698 (1969), robbery of two persons at the same time. In Flem......
  • United States v. Alexander
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 21 Abril 1972
    ...officer defined a unit of prosecution, then it would have upheld the consecutive sentences. But the other Supreme Court opinion cited in Barringer, Ebeling v. Morgan, points toward an altogether different theme. Ebeling pleaded guilty to six counts of tearing or cutting mail bags of the Uni......
  • United States v. Spears
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 16 Febrero 1971
    ...property in question. Spencer v. United States, 73 App.D.C. 98, 99, 116 F.2d 801, 802 (1940). See also Barringer v. United States, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 186, 187, 399 F.2d 557, 558 (1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1057, 89 S.Ct. 697, 21 L.Ed.2d 698 (1969). The evidence in this case indicates that ......
  • Com. v. Levia
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 23 Febrero 1982
    ..."offense" is against the person assaulted, and not against the entity that owns or possesses the property taken. See Barringer v. United States, 399 F.2d 557 (D.C.Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1057, 89 S.Ct. 697, 21 L.Ed.2d 698 (1969); State v. Shoemake, 228 Kan. 572, 576-577, 618 P.2d ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT