# Brown v. United States

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · March 30, 1984 · 474 A.2d 161

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9754676

## Case

- **Full name:** Ronald BROWN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** March 30, 1984
- **Citations:** 474 A.2d 161; 1984 D.C. App. LEXIS 371
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Ferren
- **Judges:** Ferren, Kern, Nebeker, Fer-Ren
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9754676

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that appellant's sentence of 10-30 years did not exceed the maximum punishment of life imprisonment

## Opinion text

FERREN, Associate Judge,
dissenting:
Before trial, in order to set the stage for enhancing appellant’s sentence under D.C. Code § 22-3202 (a)(2) (1981), the prosecutor filed an Information reflecting a Maryland conviction. That conviction, however, could not have served as the basis of an enhanced sentence under the statute. After appellant was convicted, the prosecutor erroneously “urged the court during sentencing allocution that a mandatory mini *165 mum sentence was required here.” Ante at 163 & n. 2. The trial court then said it had “ ‘no alternative but to impose a meaningful sentence of incarceration.’ ” Ante at 163.
Although the majority analysis may be plausible, it also smacks of bootstrapping. The information was inapplicable but not “invalid on its face.” Ante at 163. In view of the prosecutor’s erroneous representation, we cannot discount the possibility that the busy trial court may have failed to note its inapplicability.
To eliminate all doubt, and thus to assure the integrity of the sentencing process, I would remand for resentencing. If the trial court did not believe it was required to enhance the sentence by reference to the Maryland conviction, it can say so. On the other hand, if the court did improperly take that conviction into account, it can revise the sentence accordingly. Such resentenc-ing cannot possibly prejudice the government, and it will lift any possible cloud on the sentence in fairness to appellant.
Respectfully, therefore, I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9754676. Public record. Not legal advice.