Mooney v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
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
- Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- North Carolina v. PearceSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Missouri v. HunterSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Whalen v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Albernaz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Walker v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
- Gary v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2008
- Watts v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
- State v. Michael W. TobinSupreme Court of Vermont · 2018
- Grogan v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2022
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.