Moon v. Maryland

PETITIONER: Moon
RESPONDENT: Maryland
LOCATION: St. Petersburg City Hall

DOCKET NO.: 267
DECIDED BY:
LOWER COURT:

CITATION: 398 US 319 (1970)
ARGUED: Apr 22, 1970
DECIDED: Jun 08, 1970

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Moon v. Maryland

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 22, 1970 in Moon v. Maryland

Warren E. Burger:

Number 267, Moon against Maryland will go over them Monday morning at 10 o'clock.

The next case to be heard today will be 269, Price against Georgia.

If it please the Court, I believe there's been a --

Warren E. Burger:

I must have.

Georgia case is referred to come back on Monday, that is --

Warren E. Burger:

Oh, I see.

[Inaudible] could have -- could be settled on Monday.

Warren E. Burger:

Then we'll stay right on the original schedule, but we won't hear the Georgia case today.

I hope that premature postponement didn't disconcert you counsel?

Robert Anthony Jacques:

No.

Warren E. Burger:

Sure it didn't?

You may proceed whenever you're ready.

Robert Anthony Jacques:

Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.

I am Robert Anthony Jacques, attorney for petitioner Number 267.

I believe a brief statement of the chronology of events would be in order before we start the issues presented to me by the Court in this case under the instructions of last June 23.

The petitioner in this case, Dennis Mullene Moon was arrested on June 2, 1964 and was tried on December 17, 1964, convicted on January 7, 1965 for the crime of armed robbery in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland.

On October 23, 1965, the Court of Appeals of Maryland decided Schowgurow versus State of Maryland and as a result of that decision, they held it limitedly retroactive to include petitioner in these proceedings and invited or said that he could avail himself of that decision and take a new trial if he so desire since his conviction had not yet been made final.

He in effect did take a new trial on June 6, 1966, and on June 7, 1966, was convicted of armed robbery, assault with intent to murder and larceny.

It is the irony of this case that the second judge chose to increase the sentence for the same charge for which the petitioner had been convicted in both cases, that is armed robbery and then imposed to suspend it, concurrent 10-year sentences on the other charge.

I say in all frankness that had not judge -- had Judge Pugh run the other sentences consecutively and left the sentence for armed robbery at 12 years, I would not be standing here today, I would really have no case at all.

Be that as it may, Judge Pugh did see fit to increase the sentence on the identical charge for which the petitioner had received 12-years to 20-years at his second trial.

This Court, when it granted certiorari last June, ordered me to argue the question of retroactivity of North Carolina versus Pearce.

Potter Stewart:

Can I ask just before you leave the facts --

Robert Anthony Jacques:

Yes sir.

Potter Stewart:

-- whether a credit was given by defendant to judge --

Robert Anthony Jacques:

Yes and it is the -- actually Judge Pugh gave the petitioner more credit than he had received at his first trial.

Judge Pugh run the sentence back to the date of his arrest whereas the first judge run it back to the date of his first sentence only.

So in effect, Judge Pugh gave him another seven months credit for time.

Potter Stewart:

So there's no issue here --

Robert Anthony Jacques:

There's no question of credit.