Ex parte Rice

Good Law
6 F.2d 167·1925 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1102
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 27, 1925California2,156 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Partridge, J.

The peti-

tioner and one Peter P. McDonough were tried and convicted for violations of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 1013814 et seq.). Judgment upon the petitioner was imposed as follows: “That Harry Rice pay a fine in the sum of one thousand ($1,000.00) dollars and be imprisoned for the period of six (6) months on the first count of the information, and be imprisoned for the period of six (6) months on the second count of the information; said judgments of imprisonment to run consecutively.”

The basis of the application for this writ is that the jail sentences should run concurrently, because the judgment does not specify which term of imprisonment should be first — that is, whether he was to serve the six months on the first count, and then the sentence on the second count, or vice versa. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were made and denied. Then, after the imposition of sentence, another motion for a new trial was made and entertained by the court, upon the ground that the officer who had sworn to the complaint had committed perjury as to the defendant Mc-Donough.

*168 As to Rice, there was never any real contention that he was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.