Legal Definitions - concurrent-sentence doctrine

The concurrent-sentence doctrine is a legal principle that allows an appeals court to decline reviewing a challenge to a criminal conviction on one charge, if the defendant was also convicted of another charge that carries an equal or longer sentence, and that longer/equal sentence has been upheld by the court. Essentially, if overturning the challenged conviction would not change the total amount of time the defendant serves because of a valid, longer concurrent sentence, the appeals court may choose not to spend judicial resources reviewing the lesser conviction.

Here are a few examples to illustrate this doctrine:

• Example 1: Drug Offenses

  Imagine a defendant is convicted of two drug-related crimes: possession with intent to distribute (Count 1) and simple possession (Count 2). The judge sentences the defendant to 10 years for Count 1 and 5 years for Count 2, with both sentences running at the same time (concurrently). The defendant appeals both convictions. On appeal, the court finds that the conviction for possession with intent to distribute (Count 1) is clearly valid and free of legal error. Under the concurrent-sentence doctrine, the appellate court might decide not to review the defendant's challenge to the simple possession conviction (Count 2). This is because even if Count 2 were overturned, the defendant would still be required to serve the 10-year sentence for Count 1, meaning the overall time spent in prison would not change.

• Example 2: Financial Crimes

  Consider a scenario where an individual is found guilty of both grand theft (Count 1) and identity theft (Count 2) stemming from the same scheme. The court imposes concurrent sentences of 7 years for grand theft and 7 years for identity theft. The defendant appeals both convictions, arguing there were errors in the identity theft trial. If the appellate court reviews the grand theft conviction (Count 1) and finds no legal errors, it could then invoke the concurrent-sentence doctrine. Since the sentence for grand theft is equal to the identity theft sentence and runs concurrently, the court might choose not to delve into the merits of the identity theft appeal. Overturning the identity theft conviction would have no practical effect on the defendant's total 7-year prison term, which is already secured by the valid grand theft conviction.

• Example 3: Violent Crimes

  Suppose a defendant is convicted of aggravated assault (Count 1) and simple battery (Count 2) following an altercation. The judge hands down concurrent sentences: 5 years for aggravated assault and 2 years for simple battery. The defendant appeals both convictions. The appellate court thoroughly reviews the aggravated assault conviction (Count 1) and determines that it was legally sound. Applying the concurrent-sentence doctrine, the court may then decide not to consider the arguments against the simple battery conviction (Count 2). Because the 5-year sentence for aggravated assault is longer than the 2-year sentence for simple battery and they run concurrently, the defendant's total time incarcerated would remain 5 years regardless of the outcome of the simple battery appeal.