Legal Opinion

Mooney v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided December 20, 2007No. 04-CO-725PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RUIZ, Associate Judge:

Appellant contends that he had a right to be present and allocute when he was resentenced pursuant to a remand from this court to correct an illegal sentence. We hold that if, at a resentencing to correct an illegal sentence, the trial judge has discretion as to the convictions to be vacated or the sentence to be imposed, the defendant has a due process right to be present and allocute. This is so regardless of whether the resentencing is pursuant to a remand order of this court or a motion filed under Rule 35 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. Because…

2Cases cited42 opinions

  1. Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  2. North Carolina v. PearceSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Missouri v. HunterSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. Whalen v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  5. Albernaz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981

37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Walker v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
  2. Gary v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2008
  3. Watts v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
  4. State v. Michael W. TobinSupreme Court of Vermont · 2018
  5. Grogan v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2022

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API