Legal Opinion
Grant v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided May 30, 1986No. 84-1716PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ROGERS, Associate Judge:
Appellant appeals his mandatory minimum sentence under D.C.Code § 33-541(c)(1)(B) (Supp.1985) on the ground the trial court’s refusal to hear evidence he was eligible for sentencing under the addict exception, id. § 33 — 541(c)(2), constituted a denial of due process of law. He relies on Specht v. Patterson, 386 U.S. 605, 87 S.Ct. 1209, 18 L.Ed.2d 326 (1967). Because the record does not support the trial judge’s determination that appellant had failed to meet his burden to show he was eligible for sentencing under the addict exception, we remand the case to the trial…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Williams v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Specht v. PattersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Johnson v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- Dorszynski v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Peoples Drug Stores, Inc. v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1983
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Lemon v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
- Banks v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1986
- Gorbey v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2012
- Kimes v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
- Dupree v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.