In 1954, in the holmes case, the u. s. supreme court ruled that

March 15, 1954.

Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., for the people. Bert M. Keating, Dist. Atty., Max D. Melville, Asst. Dist. Atty., Denver, of counsel.

Irving P. Andrews, Ben Klein, Denver, for defendant in error.

HOLLAND, Justice.

To a judgment sustaining a motion to quash a one-count criminal information on the ground that it was duplicitous, the Attorney General prosecutes this writ of error.

That part of the information, filed in the district court in the City and County of Denver, February 17, 1953, charging burglary with and without force, is as follows:

February 24, 1953, defendant, with leave, filed motion to quash, the principal ground being, "that the sole count as set forth in said information is duplicitous for the reason that more than one offense is charged in the one count thereof." Upon argument the matter was taken under advisement, and on March 19, 1953, the court entered its memorandum opinion and judgment, quashing the information and ordering the District Attorney to file an amended information setting forth the charge in two separate counts. The following day a two-count information was filed, and the record before us is silent as to any further proceedings thereafter.

The District Attorney having elected to comply with the order of court by filing the amended information, has, in effect, waived objection to the ruling of the court on the question raised by the motion to quash. Without it being sufficiently disclosed *407 by the record or the briefs filed, we assume that the Attorney General seeks our answer to the legal question posed.

Section 82, chapter 48, volume 2, '35 C.S. A. is as follows:

This single statute defines the crime of burglary; sets out the means that may be employed to accomplish the crime; and provides only one penalty for the crime regardless of the manner in which it is achieved. Stated in another way, the statute may be violated in either of the ways mentioned; however, the final result is burglary. The wording of the information above set out, is so plain that the nature of the crime could readily be understood by defendant, and his rights are not in any manner prejudiced.

It is argued that the two means designated by the statute and set out in the information are repugnant, and that defendant could not be convicted of both; however, the evidence supporting either would still establish the crime designated by the statute.

Two distinct and separate offenses are not joined in the count of the information before us, it does not set out offenses created by different statutes for which different punishments are provided. All that is set out is one transaction for which there is one punishment, and, in effect, is only one offense. In the count, different possible acts that relate to one transaction are set out; are a connected charge thereof; and joinder thereof in one count is permissible. 

answer; the period of time known as the middle ages;

the results of roman expansion produced social conflict and civil war. julius caesar gained power and became a dictator but was then assassinated. the reign of augustus began a long period of imperial rule and peace in the roman empire. rome faced the problems of how to maintain peace, law, and order.

hope this !

brainliest?