Court Opinion

ID: 9461749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:23:47.072901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:14.771363
License: Public Domain

DONALD RUSSELL, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
The rule which will guide District Judges in disposing of Tucker type proceedings in this Circuit, as I read the majority opinion, is categorically stated in this definitive sentence which appears at approximately the end of that opinion:
“ * * * Thus, though the judge may have no actual recollection of his thoughts at the time of sentence, if by reconstruction from the record he can say with assurance that assumption of *10invalidity of the questioned prior convictions, if made at the time of sentencing, would not have resulted in a lighter sentence, there need be no further inquiry and no resentencing.”
This statement is, in my opinion, substantially a rephrasing of the rule as expressed in Brown ; and, while perhaps requiring a somewhat different rephrasing of its findings by the District Court from that stated in Brown if a resentencing is found not to be required, it lays down a rule which lends itself to practical application by District Courts without imposing on them an undue burden. I accordingly find no reason to object to this form of rephrasing.
I would add, though, that I think the District Judge, in Stepheney, in effect made a finding which, broadly construed, could be found to satisfy the requirement as phrased supra, but I am not disposed to dissent from a remand of the cause for clarification on this ground.
Judge Field authorizes me to say that he joins in this opinion.