632 F.2d 654 (5th Cir. 1980), 80-7254, United States v. Whitney

Docket Nº:80-7254
Citation:632 F.2d 654
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Parthenya WHITNEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Case Date:December 12, 1980
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 654

632 F.2d 654 (5th Cir. 1980)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Parthenya WHITNEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 80-7254

Unit B

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

December 12, 1980

Opinion Withdrawn, see 649 F.2d 296.

Jay L. Strongwater, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellant.

Andrew J. Ekonomou, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.

Page 655

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Before GODBOLD, KRAVITCH and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal presents the question whether the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment bars the district court from relying on specific acts of misconduct in revoking a defendant's probation where those acts formed the basis of a previous parole revocation. Because we find that the double jeopardy clause is not applicable to parole or probation revocation proceedings, we hold that the double jeopardy clause does not bar consideration of certain acts in probation revocation proceedings where those acts formed the basis of a previous parole revocation. We therefore affirm.

In May, 1975, Parthenya Whitney was convicted of three counts of interstate transportation of stolen property and conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. The trial judge imposed a sentence of five years imprisonment on count one and a like term on count two, the sentences to run concurrently. Regarding count three, the trial judge placed appellant on probation for a period of five years, to commence upon her release from confinement in counts one and two. In October, 1976, appellant was released on parole. In November, 1979, the United States Parole Commission filed a petition to revoke appellant's parole. The petition alleged that appellant violated the conditions of her parole in that she (1) failed to submit supervision reports, (2) passed bad checks, and (3) failed to report an arrest. After a hearing, the parole commission revoked appellant's parole. Finding, however, that appellant's parole term had expired, the parole commission released appellant from custody.

On the day of her release, the United States' probation office served appellant with an order to show cause why her probation should not be revoked. The revocation petition alleged violations identical to counts two and three of...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP