Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Correct Illegal ...

Case 2:83-cr-00314-GP Document 245 Filed 01/11/11 Page 8 of 13
States v. Rose, 215 F.2d 617, 630 (3d Cir. 1954) - has long disapproved of general sentences
in multi-count cases.
As previously explained, the Ward Court noted that the issue before it was Ward’s
argument that his general sentence was both “illegal and contrary to the Sentencing
Guidelines.” 626 F.3d at 184 (emphasis added). The Ward Court held that Ward’s
contention that his sentence was both “illegal and contrary to the Sentencing Guidelines” was
valid. In explaining why Ward’s sentence was illegal, the Ward Court pointed out that, just
as in the pre-Guidelines case of United States v. Pungitore, 910 F.2d 1084, 1135 (3d Cir.
1990), where the Third Circuit held that a general verdict of guilty is prejudicial to a
defendant because it does not disclose whether the jury found the defendant guilty of one
crime or of both, “as a result of the general nature of [Ward’s] sentence, neither we nor Ward
can determine whether it was legal as to particular counts.” Id. The Ward Court further
explained, “We do not know whether the Court intended to impose a 25 year sentence on
each count to run concurrently which would clearly be illegal considering the statutory
maximums on certain counts - or whether the Court had some other sentence in mind, and
accordingly ... we will remand for resentencing.” Id. Thus, the Ward Court plainly held that
Ward’s “general sentence” was prohibited under both pre-Guidelines and post-Guidelines
law. Notably, the defendant in Ward failed to object at sentencing but yet the Ward Court
further recognized the enormity of the error and held that “general sentences” rise to the level
of plain error. Id.
-8-