Legal Opinion
Richardson v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided July 12, 2007No. 02-CF-776PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RUIZ, Associate Judge:
This appeal presents us with the task of interpreting the trial court’s authority to impose split sentences and supervised release within the context of the determinate sentencing regime adopted by the Council of the District of Columbia in 2000, the Truth in Sentencing Amendment Act of 1998, D.C. Law 12-165, D.C.Code § 24-403.01(2001), pursuant to congressional direction in the National Capital Revitalization and Self Government Improvement Act of 1997. We hold that the law does not permit concurrent terms of probation and supervised release and that, when imposing a…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. EpsteinSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Peoples Drug Stores, Inc. v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1983
- United States Parole Commission v. NobleDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
- United States v. YoungDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1977
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Girma Aboye v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2015
- Gilberto Lopez-Ramirez v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2017
- Taylor v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2012
- Foster v. WainwrightDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- Allen v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2026
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.