Showery v. Samaniego

• Decision Date: 10 April 1987
• Docket Number: No. 86-1606,86-1606
• Citation: 814 F.2d 200
• Parties: Raymond SHOWERY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leo SAMANIEGO, Sheriff, El Paso County, Texas, Respondent-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 200

814 F.2d 200

Raymond SHOWERY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leo SAMANIEGO, Sheriff, El Paso County, Texas, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 86-1606.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

April 10, 1987.

Michael R. Gibson, El Paso, Tex., for petitioner-appellant.

Robert Davidson Dinsmoor, Steve W. Simmons, Asst. Dist. Attys., El Paso, Tex., for respondent-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, GOLDBERG and GEE, Circuit Judges.

GEE, Circuit Judge:

Defendant Raymond Showery asserts in this habeas corpus petition that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies, as a constitutional requirement, to bar the State of Texas from prosecuting him for the offense of involuntary manslaughter. Showery allegedly committed this offense while free on an appellate bond that had been granted pending Showery's appeal of his previous conviction for murder. ¹ The state sought revocation of the appellate bond, alleging that by committing the manslaughter offense Showery violated his bond conditions. The district court revoked the bond but the Texas Court of Appeals held that the state adduced insufficient proof to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Showery had committed the offense. ² The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the appellate court decision. ³ When the state attempted to prosecute Showery for involuntary manslaughter, he filed a state habeas challenge which the state courts denied. ⁴ After exhausting his state remedies he filed for federal habeas relief, which the district court denied. Although the question is a close one, we affirm because Showery was never in jeopardy of being twice criminally punished for the same offense.

We begin with the basic principle that a petitioner challenging state criminal proceedings must establish a violation of the federal Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States before a federal court can grant a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241(c)(3). The constitutional underpinnings upon which Showery initially relies are founded in the fifth amendment guarantee against double jeopardy, which is enforceable against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969). ⁵

The guarantee against double jeopardy protects against multiple punishments for the same offense and against a second prosecution for the same offense after either an acquittal or conviction. Davis v. Herring, 800 F.2d 513, 516 (1986) (citing North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2076, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969)). The doctrine of collateral estoppel stands for the principle that "when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future law suit." Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 1191, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970).

In today's case, at the bond revocation hearing the state attempted to establish that Showery had committed the offense of involuntary manslaughter, thereby violating a condition of his bond. Article 44.04(c) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides: "On a finding by the Court on a preponderance of the evidence of a violation of a condition, the Court may revoke the bail." The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the intermediate appellate court's determination that the state had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Showery had committed the manslaughter offense. See Showery v. State, 704 S.W.2d 153 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1986, pet. ref'd). Showery contends that this determination constituted a valid and final judgment concerning the issue of whether he committed the offense. Relying on Ashe, he urges therefore that the state be now collaterally estopped from attempting to relitigate this fact issue in a subsequent prosecution.

In Ashe six poker players were robbed by three or four persons. After the defendant was acquitted for the robbery of one of the victims, the state subsequently prosecuted him for the robbery of a different victim. On review, the Supreme Court first determined that in the initial prosecution, the single rationally conceivable issue was whether the defendant had been one of the robbers. Because that issue was resolved against the state, the Court held that the state could not constitutionally hail the defendant before a new jury to relitigate that issue. 397 U.S. at 446-47, 90 S.Ct. at 1195-96.

Ashe, however, does not carry the day. The Supreme Court decided that case after its Benton decision, which made the fifth amendment guarantee against double jeopardy fully applicable to the states. In that context, Ashe explicitly addressed the application of collateral estoppel as an "ingredient" of the fifth amendment guarantee against double jeopardy. 397 U.S. at 442, 90 S.Ct. at 1193. We have held that the double jeopardy clause does not apply to parole and probation revocation hearings. United States v. Whitney, 649 F.2d 296 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981). The risk against which double jeopardy protects is not present in proceedings that are not "essentially criminal." Id. at 297 (citing Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 528, 95 S.Ct. 1779, 1785, 44 L.Ed.2d 346 (1975)). In Breed v. Jones, a juvenile court initially determined that the allegations brought by the state--that the defendant had committed the juvenile equivalent of armed robbery--were true. The high court determined that double jeopardy protections attached to the juvenile adjudication, thus barring the state from subsequently prosecuting the defendant, as an adult, for armed robbery.

In Whitney, the state initially sought a revocation of parole, alleging specific acts of misconduct, but the state failed to prevail because the parole term had expired. The state then sought to revoke Ms. Whitney's probation, alleging the same dilatory conduct. This Court found a fundamental distinction between parole and probation proceedings and the juvenile adjudication found to be "essentially criminal" in Breed v. Jones. Parole and revocation proceedings are not designed to punish for the violations of criminal laws, but to determine whether the conditions of parole or probation have been violated, and thus ultimately to determine whether the parolee or probationer is a good risk. That reasoning applies with equal force to appellate bond revocation proceedings. Even though the alleged basis for bond revocation is the commission of a subsequent offense, the proceedings are not designed to obtain a conviction for the violation of that offense. They are designed to assess the propriety of allowing the defendant, who has already been convicted and sentenced on a separate charge, to remain free on bond. Such proceedings are not "essentially criminal."

We are mindful that the nonapplication of double jeopardy to parole, probation, and appellate bond proceedings can afford the government a second bite at the apple. If it fails the first time, it has the opportunity to bolster and refine its initially unpersuasive case. We are also mindful that this "trial run" is not entirely unhelpful to the defendant in preparing his case.

Showery vigorously argues that this is a collateral estoppel case and not a double jeopardy claim. We are unpersuaded, however, by his attempts to erect a due process basis, independent of the double jeopardy clause, for the application of collateral estoppel. The Ashe decision provides him little solace. It squarely held that the rule of collateral estoppel is "embodied in the fifth amendment guarantee against double jeopardy." 397 U.S. at 445, 90 S.Ct. at 1195. In Hoag v. New Jersey, 356 U.S. 464, 78 S.Ct. 829, 2 L.Ed.2d 913 (1958), a pre-Benton decision, the Court had addressed virtually the same facts as those found in Ashe. The Hoag court had addressed the constitutional issue solely as a due process question under the Fourteenth Amendment. In dicta, the Court noted its "grave doubts whether collateral estoppel can be regarded as a constitutional requirement." Noting the Hoag dicta, the Ashe court reiterated that the basis for its contrary result was the intervention of the Benton decision, which applied the double jeopardy clause to the states. Ashe thus makes it clear that collateral estoppel applies insofar as it is necessary to safeguard against the risk of double jeopardy, i.e. the risk of unfair and abusive reprosecutions. ⁶ 397 U.S. at 445, n. 10, 90 S.Ct. at 1195, n. 10.

Showery asserts that our Court has applied collateral estoppel to bar a state from attempting to establish the fact of the crime, once that issue has already been decided against the government, citing United States v. Mock, 604 F.2d 341 (5th Cir.1979). ⁷ That case provides little assistance to Showery in his effort to clear the threshold burden of showing a constitutional basis for his collateral estoppel claim. Mock involved two criminal proceedings alleging violations of federal laws. Collateral estoppel has long been an established rule of federal criminal law. Ashe, 397 U.S. at 443, 90 S.Ct. at 1194. Furthermore, the Mock Court specifically noted the link between collateral estoppel and double jeopardy, stating that "while the parent doctrine of double jeopardy bars a subsequent prosecution ... its progeny, collateral estoppel, bars only reintroduction or relitigation of facts already established against the government. 604 F.2d at 343. Thus, Mock applies collateral estoppel pursuant to Ashe and does not purport to expand the constitutional basis for the application of collateral estoppel beyond the double jeopardy clause.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has recently held that collateral estoppel bars the subsequent prosecution of an offense after the state has failed to prove "identical allegations" in a probation revocation hearing. In re Tarver, 725 S.W.2d 195 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). ⁸ In reaching...