Court Opinion

ID: 9638081
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:32:44.717598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:03.524700
License: Public Domain

HOOD, Chief Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the opinion of Judge Myers, but feel I should make these few observations.
With respect to voluntary payment of the fine, it should be noted that before trial appellant stated he neither needed nor wanted counsel, but nevertheless the trial court appointed counsel for him and such counsel was present at the time of sentencing. It seems obvious to me that appellant had available means of ascertaining his right of appeal and right to post the amount of the fine as bail on appeal. Without seeking advice on the matter he paid the fine, and in my opinion such payment was voluntary in-the sense that it could have been avoided' pending appeal.
With respect to the collateral consequences of a conviction necessary to prevent the appeal becoming moot by payment of fine or service of a sentence, it is my~ understanding those consequences must affect some right of the defendant existing-at the time, and that the possibility that, some right may be affected in some way at some future time is not sufficient. It is. conceivable that a conviction of any criminal offense may at some time in a defendant’s life have a detrimental effect, but if' this is to be the test, then the question of' mootness by service of sentence or payment of fine is completely eliminated in all cases..
Finally, if the rule that a conviction, should not be reviewed because it has become moot by reason of service of sentence- or payment of fine, appears to be harsh in: *89that it may leave standing an erroneous conviction, I suggest it is no more harsh than the long-established rule that if the sentence imposed is supported by one count of an indictment, the question of the validity of a conviction under other counts charging other crimes need not be considered. Claassen v. United States, 142 U.S. 140, 12 S.Ct. 169, 35 L.Ed. 966 (1891). Thus, just recently the United States Court of Appeals for this Circuit, finding that convictions under counts three and four of an indictment were proper, held it was not necessary to pass upon the validity of convictions under counts one and two.1 And likewise this court recently in affirming convictions of soliciting for lewd and immoral purposes found it unnecessary to review convictions of vagrancy.2 Under this rule, as under the mootness rule, there is always the chance that an erroneous conviction may stand unreviewed and unre-versed.

. Moore v. United States, D.C.Cir., 330 F.2d 842 (March 26, 1964).

. Willis v. United States, D.C.App., 198 A.2d 751.