Case Name: Arnold L. CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1958-06-26
Citations: 258 F.2d 160
Docket Number: Nos. 14309-14311
Parties: Arnold L. CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 258
Pages: 160–161

Head Matter:
Arnold L. CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Nos. 14309-14311.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued May 28, 1958.
Decided June 26, 1958.
Mr. James M. Earnest, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court) for appellant.
Mr. Harry T. Alexander, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., Carl W. Belcher and Thomas A. Flannery, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before Edgerton, Chief Judge, and Fahy and Burger, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
These are appeals' from the denial without a hearing of a motion which had been filed in the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1952). The motion attacked the validity of certain sentences which had been imposed upon appellant, as now explained. He had been indicted in case No. 804-54 on two counts for robbery, in violation of section 22-2901, D. C.Code (1951), in case No. 805-54 on four counts for robbery in violation of the same statute, and in case No. 806-54 for attempted robbery in violation of section 22-2902, D.C.Code (1951), on one count. He entered pleas of guilty and was sentenced on the first indictment from two to six years, on each of the four counts of the second indictment from one to three years, these sentences to take effect consecutively with one another and consecutively also with the sentence on the first indictment, and on the third indictment from one to three years, concurrently with the sentences already referred to.
His motion is to the effect, inter alia, that he actually pleaded to only one count in each of the three indictments. An examination of the transcript of the proceedings at the time he entered his pleas convinces us that he is correct in this respect. The result is that the sentence on the last indictment of one count (No. 806-54) should not be disturbed; the sentence on the second indictment (No. 805-54) should be set aside except as to one sentence from one to three years; and, as to the first indictment (No. 804-54), the District Court may resentence appellant if it so desires since the present sentence under that indictment of two to six years is a general sentence covering two counts, and might have been less if imposed with respect to only one count.
It is so ordered.
. 31 Stat. 1322 (1901).
. Ibid.
. The sentence in No. 804-54 may not be increased, since it was valid and has been partially served. Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 85 U.S. 163, 21 L.Ed. 872; Hayes v. United States, 102 U.S.App. D.C. 1, 249 F.2d 516