Legal Opinion
Pixley v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided April 17, 1997No. 95-CF-1648PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FARRELL, Associate Judge.
In affirming appellant’s convictions, we publish this opinion only to treat his contention that his conviction for armed robbery merged with his conviction for armed carjacking. 1
Absent a clear indication of contrary legislative intent, this court applies the rule of Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), to claims of merger of criminal offenses. That rule “focuses on objective criteria, [namely] the statutory elements of the offenses charged....” Parker v. United States, 692 A.2d 913, 916 (D.C.1997).
[W]here the same act or…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Neufield v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1941
- Byrd v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
- Spencer Womack v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1964
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- United States v. Gilliam, Darron G.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1999
- Harris v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
- Kitt v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2006
- Matthews v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2006
- Downing v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.