Court Opinion

ID: 9639690
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:45:11.648665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:21.046994
License: Public Domain

GALLAGHER, Associate Judge
(concurring) :
I concur on the ground that consecutive sentences may be given for convictions under the burglary and larceny statutes. Morgan v. Devine, 237 U.S. 632, 35 S.Ct. 712, 59 L.Ed. 1153 (1915). While the propriety of' consecutive sentences for offenses arising from one continuous transaction is currently under scrutiny,1 Morgan is apparently still the law and it is by no means certain it will not remain so.2
Though appellant was actually convicted of attempted burglary (second degree) rather than burglary, this factor does not invalidate the consecutive sentences imposed here as a conviction for an attempt is valid even though the completed act is proved at trial. United States v. Fleming, D.C.App., 215 A.2d 839 (1966). It is un*909necessary to consider that appellant also received a one year sentence for destruction of private property as this was made to run concurrently with the petit larceny sentence. Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774 (1943).

. See, e.g., Irby v. United States, 129 U.S.App.D.C. 17, 390 F.2d 432 (1967).

. Cf. Prince v. United States, 352 U.S. 322, 325, 328 note 9, 77 S.Ct. 403, 1 L.Ed.2d 370. See also Clark v. United States, 267 F.2d 99 (4th Cir. 1959) ; Hamilton v. United States, 253 F.2d 421 (5th Cir. 1958).