Court Opinion

ID: 9443053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:09:31.376847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:21.286272
License: Public Domain

FRANK, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
Less than a year ago-, this court held that a conviction for possessing counterfeit ' money could not be based upon possession which was solely incidental to a proven sale of the same counterfeit money. We said, in reversing the conviction for such possession: “So far therefore as any possession is a necessary incident to any of the other offences, it cannot have been intended as a separate offence.” United States v. Chiarella, 2 Cir., 187 F.2d 12, 13. This conclusion was not casually reached; indeed, it was reaffirmed on a denial of the government’s petition for rehearing. It was then, and I think it still is today, the only compelling rationale for doing away with the evil o-f cumulative sentencing for identical counterfeiting offenses.
My colleagues’ opinion might perhaps he read as implying that we are in effect overruling Chiarella. As I am unwilling to have it appear that I join in such an implication, I note that my colleagues’ opinion-can be, and I think should be, reconciled with Chiarella as follows: When a defendant is charged, pursuant to § 472, with possession, and the proof is of possession incidental to a sale, the defendant may be sentenced under § 472 for fifteen years (the maximum under that section), provided he is not cumulatively sentenced for a sale, whether-under § 472 or § 473.