United States v. Delancy Scott
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. DeLancy SCOTT, Appellant
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, DeLancy Scott, was convicted by a jury for the distribution of heroin. 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). That *1103 conviction was affirmed by this court in an unpublished opinion filed September 25, 1973.
The trial court’s oral sentence given in open court was six years’ imprisonment. The written “Judgment and Commitment” was for six years’ imprisonment to be followed by the mandatory special parole required by 21 TJ.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).
On February'7, 1974 appellant filed a Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 motion for correction of sentence seeking resolution of the discrepancy between the oral and written sentences.
The trial court and the government agreed with appellant that the sentence was erroneous and therefore illegal because it was in violation of the applicable statute. We agree that the sentence as given in defendant’s presence was erroneous since it omitted a term required to be imposed by law. Bozza v. United States, 330 U.S. 160, 166 , 67 S. Ct. 645 , 91 L.Ed. 818 (1947).
The original sentence was set aside and appellant was brought before the court and resentenced to six years’ imprisonment and three years’ special parole in accordance with 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b)(1)(A). Credit was given for the time already served and any accumulated good time.
In this appeal appellant contends that the imposition of the increased sentence constituted double jeopardy and that the six year sentence should have been reduced.
This court has recently faced an identical problem and resolved the issue contrary to appellant’s position. In United States v. Richardson, 498 F.2d 9 (8th Cir. 1974), this court relied on Bozza v. United States, 330 U.S. 160, 165-167 , 67 S.Ct. 645 , 91 L.Ed. 818 (1947), and said:
Where the original sentence is invalid, vacation of that sentence and imposition of another sentence, even though more severe, does not constitute double jeopardy.
Accord Orrie v. United States, 302 F.2d 695 (8th Cir. 1962); United States v. Mack, 494 F.2d 1204 (9th Cir. 1974); Caille v. United States, 487 F.2d 614 (5th Cir. 1973).
The Bozza opinion is controlling in this instance as well.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.