Rice

Rice v. United States

Good Law
7 F.2d 319·1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3538
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 3, 1925No. 4597California1,635 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McCamant, J.

(after stating the facts as above). It is well settled that when a defendant is convicted on more than one count, and separate sentences of imprisonment are imposed, these sentences will run • concurrently, unless provision is made to the contrary in the judgment order. It has also been held repeatedly ‘that the judgment order should indicate the sequence in which.the terms of imprisonment are to he served. The authorities cited by-appellant sustain his contentions in these respects, but appellees contend that the sentence imposed in this ease is effective in imposing two successive terms of imprisonment of six months each, within the operation of-the above rules.

Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for six months on the first count and six months on the second count, “said judgments to run consecutively.” The word “consecutively” is derived from the • Latin verb consequi, “to go after,” “come after,” “succeed.” In the Century Dictionary “consecutively” is defined as "in a consecutive manner,” “in regular succession,” “successively.” In the same work “consecutive” is defined as “succeeding one another in regular order.”

On familiar rules of construction we cannot reject the…

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.