Court Opinion

ID: 9427861
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:22:07.460057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:10.104588
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice White,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
Because the District of Columbia Court of Appeals did not take account of § 23-112 of the District of Columbia Code, this is one of those exceptional cases in which the judgment of that court is not entitled to the usual deference. *696Pernell v. Southall Realty, 416 U. S. 363, 369 (1974). This conclusion, in my opinion, need not rest on any constitutional considerations.
I agree for the reasons given by the Court that in light of § 23-112 and its legislative history, the court below erred in holding that Congress intended to authorize cumulative punishments in this case. But as I see it, the question is one of statutory construction and does not implicate the Double Jeopardy Clause. Had Congress authorized cumulative punishments, as the District of Columbia Court of Appeals held in this case, imposition of such sentences would not violate the Constitution. I agree with Mr. Justice Blackmun and Mr. Justice Rehnquist in this respect.