From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Byrd v. District of Columbia

District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jun 16, 1964
201 A.2d 536 (D.C. 1964)

Opinion

No. 3469.

Argued May 4, 1964.

Decided June 16, 1964.

APPEAL FROM DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS, ANDREW J. HOWARD, JR., J.

William Beasley Harris, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

David P. Sutton, Asst. Corp. Counsel, with whom Chester H. Gray, Corp. Counsel, Milton D. Korman, Principal Asst. Corp. Counsel, and Hubert B. Pair, Asst. Corp. Counsel, were on the brief, for appellee.

Before HOOD, Chief Judge, QUINN, Associate Judge, and CAYTON (Chief Judge, Retired).


This is an appeal from a conviction on a charge of vagrancy. When the appeal was argued appellant had completed service of his sentence of ninety days. Under our ruling in Butler v. District of Columbia, D.C.App., 200 A.2d 86, service of the sentence renders the case moot unless there are surviving collateral consequences of the conviction which will have some material effect on appellant. Here there is not even an intimation of any such consequence. Although appellant at trial denied his guilt of the offense charged, he admitted previous convictions for robbery, assault, housebreaking, larceny and vagrancy. On the record in this case we must hold that service of the sentence rendered this appeal moot.

Appeal dismissed.


Summaries of

Byrd v. District of Columbia

District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jun 16, 1964
201 A.2d 536 (D.C. 1964)
Case details for

Byrd v. District of Columbia

Case Details

Full title:Joseph L. BYRD, Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee

Court:District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Date published: Jun 16, 1964

Citations

201 A.2d 536 (D.C. 1964)

Citing Cases

Washington v. United States

Appellant has served the full term of his sentence on the tampering charge and has failed to demonstrate to…

In re DeNeueville

Until Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968), it was a rule well established…