Opinion

Sterling v. United States

  • 515 A.2d 433
  • 1986 D.C. App. LEXIS 434
Court
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Filed
Sep 26, 1986
Status
Published
Author
Nebeker
On the bench
Nebeker, Rogers, Terry
Cited by
2 cases
Authority
More cited than 19.4%

The opinion

NEBEKER, Associate Judge,

dissenting:

I dissent because, in any event, the trial court was without authority to consider the post-sentence event on a contested motion to reduce sentence. See Williams v. United States, 470 A.2d 302, 310 (D.C.1983), and United States v. Nunzio, 430 A.2d 1372, 1375 (D.C.1981), and cases cited. There is no ambiguity about that, and this remand order does not address this point. Therefore, when a different judge acts on remand, he is free to consider and rule that the post-sentence event is properly addressed to the other authority; e.g., the Pardon Attorney, the Attorney General (for special treatment), or the parole authorities when timely.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.