Document: 350 U.S. 79 76 S.Ct. 171 100 L.Ed. 62 Lonnie AFFRONTI, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. No. 71. Argued Nov. 15, 1955. Decided Dec. 5, Mr. Harry F. Murphy, Kansas City, Mo., for petitioner. John V. Lindsay, New York respondent. Justice REED delivered the opinion Court. 1 Affronti was tried in United States District Court Western Missouri on a ten-count indictment charging him with illegal sales narcotics. A jury found guilty counts two through ten, and five-year sentence imposed each count to be served consecutively. At time sentencing, execution sentences six ten suspended probation granted, commence at expiration five. While serving his two, petitioner filed motion seeking suspension three, four The denied upon controlling authority Phillips v. States, 8 Cir., 1954, 212 F.2d 327, which held that district courts have no power suspend after prisoner has begun serve cumulative composed or more consecutive sentences. Appeals affirmed,1 we granted certiorari2 because existence conflict between decision below Ninth Circuit Kirk 185 185.3 2 Prior 1925 had all release convict probation. Ex parte 242 27, 37 72, 61 129. This situation remedied by Congress when it passed Probation Act 1925.4 That gave federal courts, 'after conviction plea nolo contendere', place defendant probation.5 purpose Act, as revealed its legislative history, discussed this Murray, 275 347, 48 146, 72 309. case also presented question concerning within court can grant 3 In Murray observed that, view provisions parole executive clemency, would seem unlikely intended make applicable during same period time. Id., page 356, 148. It concluded reasonable construe so reconcile three methods mitigation criminal sentences, thereby 'making them little repetition can.' 357, 149. other considerations led hold disctrict judge under he sentence. 4 does not, however, completely dispose now before Since there been language change statutory considering commenced single general sentence.6 Here are concerned are, technically, wholly unexecuted they constitute unserved terms series 5 1948, connection revision codification Title 18 Code, changed. statute provides 'Upon entering judgment conviction.'7 substitution quoted words phrase appeared prior 1948 18, not appear resulted any substantive law. Reviser's Notes accompanied merely stated following respect amendment: 'Words contendere crime offense punishable death life imprisonment' were omitted from first unnecessary.'8 used full explanation changes made text existing law.9 is unlikely, therefore, appears present section different meaning than revision.10 6 significant difference one fact here dealing number distinct run consecutively.11 Petitioner notes while suspended. He reasons still probationary over latter Of course do themselves require adoption petitioner's argument. provision, original provision interpreted suggests contrary result. 7 final analysis, must governed statute. Are read mean should able uncommenced imprisoned entered term? We think not. points out wise apply such way unnecessarily overlap executive-clemency Federal judicial permit springs solely action. supra. put an term, service earlier term begun, clearly given. Therefore, construing probation, adhere interpretation avoid interference clemency powers vested Executive Branch.12 conclude ceases composing immediately imprisonment part sentence.13 note argument since authorized sentencing limit less sentence,14 follow exist until begun. But entire compel conclusion separate exists begins each. think, moreover, met our avoid, far possible, duplicating See 12, 9 done nothing Court's supra, indicate applied beginning 10 Affirmed. 221 150. 349 951, 75 884. Fourth accord Eighth question. Mann 218 936. Th Tenth Circuit, obiter dictum, White Steigleder, 858, 859, Circuit. Kelley 209 638. 43 Stat. 1259. extended convictions imprisonment, exercise discretionary conditioned ends justice best interests public defendant. embraced cases consolidated three-month prison placed (Murray) day case, (Cook) sentenced 'a total fourteen years nine months' remainder approximately Whether Cook's (see 332) unimportant His treated if 842, U.S.C. § 3651, U.S.C.A. 3651. H.R.Rep. 304, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., App.A.173. 9. 185, 188. 11 6, 12 construction result unnecessary clear reference 4202, 4202. may paroled one-third 'term terms' confined. Thus, eligible 4161, 'When served, aggregate several shall basis' computing off good behavior. 13 further supported recognition some practicalities sentencing. conviction, position fix convict's Thereafter, becomes progressively familiar material adjustment punishment fit criminal. time, officials Branch responsible these matters become better qualified proper adjustments. Cf. Soeder, D.C., 120 F.Supp. 594, 597; Bernett, 123 841, 846. These much simple see Note, Application Convicts Serving Consecutive Sentences, 64 Yale L.J. 260, 265—268 (1954). 14 'limited indictments' added 18. 'reflects exactly practice followed courts.' addition did itself reveal extension thereof.

Category: 8