*1 MILER, Appellant, v. James G. STATES, Appellee.
UNITED Court of
District of Columbia May July C., Dobkin, Washington,
Abraham D. Subin, Atty., U. S. D. Asst. William Bress, Atty., U. with whom David G. S. Houck, Q. Frank Nebeker Oliver A. Attys., Asst. U. S. and FICK- Judg-
LING and es.
FICKLING, Judge. defendant, Appellant, along with another attempted burglary, Secs. was convicted of II, 22-103, 1968), petit (b) (Supp. 22-1801 larceny, de- 22-2202, and malicious Sec. 22-403, property, (D.C. struction of Sec. sen- 1967), Code and each days, and 180 days, tenced to 360 respectively, run con- sentences to secutively. Only appeals. Upon carefully examining the find in the trial of the case we no error and, therefore, the convictions are affirm- However, resentencing ed. we remand for sentencing process improper. since the *2 498
After the jury verdict, returned its judge the used improper considerations when following colloquy place: took imposed he sentence. The Government contends that clearly the record shows that
THE COURT: Do these defendants appellant given was an opportunity speak to have records? Dobkin Mr. [defense in his own disagree. behalf. We The counsel], you say anything, do want to question, Court’s last you say “Do want to sir? anything ”, else? apparently addressed to MR. Yes, spoken DOBKIN: defense counsel Your Honor. I who had before you would ask while the refer of two defendants both the defend- were at seated probation ants counsel sentencing to before table. The record does not reflect any reply My question them. understanding by to the is that Mr. counsel or the Graham two has no defendants. and that Mr. disorderly. has one conviction of It must be clear from the record I think the help greatly Court would that the defendants been personally have you if put both proba- defendants on given their opportunity for allocution. tion. Cf. Columbia, v. District D.C.App., of Jalbert
THE
right.
All
COURT:
Put it over
occasion for paid imposed here. when he sentence. His refusal to close probation refer the These defendants case to the office for a attention. They presentence show no get investigation report remorse. and tried to out They perjured part that, of based in it. themselves. on the fact "These de felony. a They It’s already got- They have show no tried to remorse. fendants get ten a having break in it out They perjured broken it. themselves.” down judge may penalize to a A trial you misdemeanor. Do not a defend want say ant anything admitting guilt expressing else? for not jury guilty. remorse once the has him found up, Stand please, you. both of Such an might jeopardize admission his right appeal a a new trial. Frank; or motion for days 360 burglary, each on the proper Nor it judge is for the trial to im days 180 each on the destroying prop- pose a sentence because he believes heavier erty, each petit on the lar- perjured the defendant in maintain himself ceny, consecutively with credit for the stand, ing his be innocence on or they up. time have been locked right jury cause he exercised his aof Appellant States, that claims he was denied trial. See U.S. Scott v. right allocution,1 his and that App.D.C. 20,954, the trial February decided (No. 20(a): imposing Rule GS sentence the court shall afford (a) opportunity SENTENCE. Sentence shall be the defendant an imposed delay. present without unreasonable in his own behalf statement and to Pending may any mitigation punish- sentence the court commit information or alter the bail. Before ment. Wiley, See also United States 1969). (7th 1959). Cir.
Appellant’s without improper is sentences
secutive *3 States, D.C. United See Weeks v.
merit.
App.,
(1969).
Convictions
sentencing. Judge:
GALLAGHER, Associate my concur- in the See result. concur States, D.C.App., in
rence Weeks v. (1969).
GROUP Appellant, FOLEY, Appellee.
Sarah Steele, D.C., Washington, with Charles J. D.C., Carmody, Washington, whom John J. Court District Columbia was on the for 16, 1968. Dec. D.C., Alexander, Washington, for John June 1969. and KEL- Judges. LY and KELLY, Judge: Group Hospi- Appellee, a subscriber her cov- talization, since allowed Inc. monthly lapse erage by failing city. Her away from the payments while accepted for reinstatement application that the 1, 1965, proviso April pre-existing period for waiting ten-month the effective apply from would conditions day, dur- The next date of reinstatement.1 only lowing been the Contract has Waiting after Period period waiting ten provisions Subject effect of Para- immedi- months consecutive calendar graph hereof, this benefits under preceding ately Sub- date of the the fol- be will available Contract