Barrow v. United States
| Decision Date | 07 January 1924 |
| Docket Number | 3996. |
| Parties | BARROW v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Submitted December 4, 1923.
Rehearing Denied January 26, 1924.
Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
Matthew E. O'Brien and Matthew H. O'Brien, both of Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Peyton Gordon and J. H. Bilbrey, both of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
Before ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices, and BARBER, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.
Appellant, defendant below, was convicted of the crime of forging the indorsements upon and uttering two checks drawn on the treasury of the United States to the order of one G. H. Stovall.
The case is here on numerous assignments of error, none of which, or all combined, call for reversal of the judgment. The questions presented are too elementary to justify the incumbrance of the reports with a formal opinion. A discussion of the matters embraced in the bill of exceptions would serve no good purpose, either by way of enlightenment or entertainment of the bar.
A suggestion by the district attorney discloses that sections 148 and 151 of the Penal Code (Comp. St. Secs. 10318, 10321), under which defendant was convicted, provide punishments consisting of both fine and imprisonment, while defendant was sentenced only to a term of imprisonment. The judgment in this particular should be corrected. This oversight on the part of the trial judge, however, is not such as to require a new trial. Egan v. United States, 52 App.D.C. 384, 397, 287 F. 958; Harman v. United States (C.C.) 50 F. 922; Woodruff v. United States (C.C.) 58 F. 766, 768; In re Christian (C.C.) 82 F. 199.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded, with direction to the trial court to set aside the judgment and resentence the defendant as required by law.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State, 53809
...no valid and enforceable sentence can be imposed at all. Cf. Jordan v. United States (CCA 4th) 60 F.2d 4, 6, with Barrow v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 128, 295 F. 949. This Court has rejected the "doctrine that a prisoner, whose guilt is established, by a regular verdict, is to escape punis......
-
Hayes v. United States
...the defendant has appealed on other grounds and the prosecution has then raised the issue of error in the sentence. Barrow v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 128, 295 F. 949. We are persuaded also that a sentence which does not conform with the applicable statute may be corrected though defendan......
-
Bozza v. United States
...court, no valid and enforceable sentence can be imposed at all. Cf. Jordan v. United States, 4 Cir., 60 F.2d 4, 6 with Barrow v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 128, 295 F. 949. This Court has rejected the 'doctrine that a prisoner, whose guilt is established by a regular verdict, is to escape p......
-
State v. Greene
...no valid and enforceable sentence can be imposed at all. Cf. Jordan v. United States, 4 Cir., 60 F.2d 4, 6, with Barrow v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 128, 295 F. 949. This Court has rejected the 'doctrine that a prisoner, whose guilt is established by a regular verdict, is to escape punishm......