UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
EFREN CORTES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a defendant is not entitled to force the government to elect between charges of possession with intent to distribute and actual distribution when both arise from a single transaction and concurrent sentences are imposed.
Appellant was charged in a two-count indictment for violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) based on a single sale of cocaine. He moved to compel the governme…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Duplicity In Indictment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, Efren Cortes, attacks the trial court’s denial of his motion to compel the government to elect between the charges of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and the actual distribution of the cocaine. Cortes was charged in a two count indictment; each count alleged a separate violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1976).1 The motion was made prior to trial and was renewed at the conclusion of the evidence. Both counts result from a single sale of cocaine by Cortes to an undercover D.E.A. agent.
It is important to distinguish what this case is not about. United States v. Hernandez, 591 F. 2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1979) is inapplicable because the problem there was the consecutive sentences imposed by the trial court after conviction on both counts. Cortes does not complain about the concurrent sentences he received. See United States v. Woods, 568 F. 2d 509 (6th Cir. 1978). Nor does this case involve a question of duplicity where the indictment is said to charge two offenses in one count. See United States v. Viserto, 596 F. 2d 531 (2d Cir. 1979); United States v. Orzechowski, 547 F. 2d 978 (7th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 906, 97 S.Ct. 1701, 52 L.Ed.2d 391 (1977); United States v. Herbert, 502 F. 2d 890 (10th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 931, 95 S.Ct. 1134, 43 L.Ed.2d 403 (1975).
The only complaint here is that the trial court should have forced the government to elect to go to the jury either on the possession with intent to distribute count or on the distribution count. Had the government been forced to do so, appellant claims this would have enabled him to argue that the government had proved the omitted charge rather than the charge before the jury. In other words, appellant wants to put the government to an election so that he can argue that the government elected erroneously. He is not entitled to this advantage.
Finding no error, the conviction is AFFIRMED.
. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) reads, in pertinent part: (a) Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally—
(1) to . . . distribute ... or possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Palafox, 764 F.2d 558 (9th Cir. 1985)
-
United States v. Ortiz, 610 F.2d 280 (5th Cir. 1980)
-
United States v. Esnoel Lopez-Pena, 912 F.2d 1542 (1st Cir. 1989)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brinson v. Florida, 431 U.S. 906 (U.S. 1977)
- United States v. Viserto, 596 F.2d 531 (2d Cir. 1979)
- United States v. Hernandez, 591 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1979)
- United States v. Orzechowski, 547 F.2d 978 (7th Cir. 1976)
- Brown v. United States, 420 U.S. 931 (U.S. 1975)
- Sutton v. United States, 420 U.S. 931 (U.S. 1975)
- United States v. Woods, 568 F.2d 509 (6th Cir. 1978)
- United States v. Herbert, 502 F.2d 890 (10th Cir. 1974)