Andrus v. Turner
| Decision Date | 06 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | 558-69,566-69,No. 556-69,560-69 to 564-69,569-69.,568-69,556-69 |
| Citation | 421 F.2d 290 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
| Parties | Scott O. ANDRUS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellee, v. John W. TURNER, Warden, Utah State Prison, Respondent-Appellant. Larry L. BRONSON, Petitioner-Appellee, v. John W. TURNER, Warden, Utah State Prison, Respondent-Appellant. Edgar E. ELDREDGE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. John W. TURNER, Warden, Utah State Prison, Respondent-Appellant. Harry L. HANSEN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. John W. TURNER, Warden, Utah State Prison, Respondent-Appellant. James LOGAN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. John W. TURNER, Warden, Utah State Prison, Respondent-Appellant. George Phillip MOORE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. John W. TURNER, Warden, Utah State Prison, Respondent-Appellant. James L. MOWER, Petitioner-Appellee, v. John W. TURNER, Warden, Utah State Prison, Respondent-Appellant. Felix ORNELAS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. John W. TURNER, Warden, Utah State Prison, Respondent-Appellant. Clyde Michael SPRINGER, Petitioner-Appellee, v. John W. TURNER, Warden, Utah State Prison, Respondent-Appellant. Mel STEPHENS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. John W. TURNER, Warden, Utah State Prison, Respondent-Appellant. |
Richard L. Bird, Jr., Salt Lake City, Utah, for appellees Scott O. Andrus, Jr., Larry L. Bronson, Edgar E. Eldredge and James L. Mower.
Louis H. Callister, Jr., Salt Lake City, Utah, for appellees Harry L. Hansen and George Phillip Moore.
Albert R. Bowen, Salt Lake City, Utah, for appellees James Logan, Felix Ornelas, Clyde Michael Springer and Mel Stephens.
Lauren N. Beasley, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., on the brief), for appellant.
Before PICKETT, LEWIS and HICKEY, Circuit Judges.
These habeas corpus cases present identical issues and have been consolidated for disposition on appeal. Each petitioner was convicted and sentenced in the state courts of Utah for violation of the insufficient funds statute of that state, Utah Code Ann., § 76-20-11 (1953) as amended, and was serving the sentence in the Utah Penitentiary when his action was instituted. The trial court held that the sentencing portion of the aforesaid statute violated the due process and equal protection of the laws provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and ordered the prisoners released forthwith.
The facts are not in dispute. The insufficient funds checks issued by the various petitioners ranged in amount from five dollars to over fifty dollars. Each prisoner was sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years regardless of the amount involved in the particular check transaction. The penalty provision of the statute provides that a violation "is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or in the state prison for not more than fourteen years." Although the basis for the trial court's judgment is not clear, the court appears to have thought that the statutory penalty provision fixed punishment for crimes which were misdemeanors and also those which were felonies, with no definition of either crime and no standard by which a sentencing judge could determine whether a misdemeanor or a felony had been committed. There was an implication that the statute permitted cruel and unusual punishment. The fallacy of the reasoning in regard to the definition of the offense is that in Utah any offense which "may be punishable * * * by imprisonment in the state prison" is a felony regardless of the sentence imposed. Utah Code Ann., § 76-1-13 (1953). All violations of § 76-20-11 are felonies, even though the sentencing judge may exercise his discretion and sentence the prisoner for a term in the county jail not to exceed one year. State v. Alexander, 15 Utah 2d 14, 386 P.2d 411 (1963); State v. Scott, 105 Utah 31, 140 P.2d 929 (1943). It is not uncommon for criminal statutes to define crimes affecting the property of others as felonies and to fix punishment without regard to the value of the property. For example, in Utah the penalty for any forgery, which includes bank checks, is for a period of not less than one year, nor more than twenty years. Utah Code Ann., § 76-26-4 (1953). The theft of livestock is defined as grand larceny with no reference to the value of the livestock stolen, although generally to constitute grand larceny the value of the property stolen must exceed fifty dollars. Utah Code Ann., § 76-38-4 (1953).
The fixing of penalties for criminal acts is a legislative function and ordinarily a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal nor considered as cruel and unusual punishment if it is within the statutory limits. Hall v. United States, 404 F.2d 1365 (10 Cir.1969); Adam v. United States, 266 F.2d 819 (10 Cir. 1959); Moore v. Aderhold, 108 F.2d 729 (10 Cir.1939).
The equal protection of the laws within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require exact equality. Norvell v. Illinois, 373 U. S. 420, 83 S.Ct. 1366, 10 L.Ed.2d 456 (1963), reh. denied, 375 U.S. 870, 84 S. Ct. 27, 11 L.Ed.2d 99. It is only arbitrary and invidious discrimination that is condemned. Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726, 83 S.Ct. 1028, 10 L.Ed.2d 93 (1963). The imposition of a criminal sentence requires the exercise of judicial discretion by the sentencing judge, which includes consideration of all mitigating and aggravating circumstances relevant to the sentencing process. Identical punishment for like crimes is not required by the Fourteenth Amendment. Williams v. Oklahoma, 358 U.S. 576, 585, 79 S.Ct. 421, 3 L.Ed.2d 516 (1959), reh. denied, 359 U.S. 956, 79 S. Ct. 737, 3 L.Ed.2d 763; Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 169 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949), reh. denied, 337 U.S. 961, 69 S.Ct. 1529, 93 L.Ed. 1760, 338 U.S. 841, 70 S.Ct. 34, 94 L.Ed.2d 514. Broad discretion of the sentencing judge in many jurisdictions includes the power to impose an indeterminate sentence, together with the right to suspend sentence, or to grant probation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trambitas, Matter of, 47544-0
...an accused the equal protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. Morrison v. Walker, 404 F.2d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir. 1968); Andrus v. Turner, 421 F.2d 290, 292 (10th Cir. 1970); Bratton v. Sigler, 235 F.Supp. 448 (D.Neb.1964). The reasoning in these cases is that allowing discretion enables the s......
-
Haskins v. United States
...will not be disturbed on appeal nor considered as cruel and unusual punishment if it is within statutory limits. Andrus v. Turner, 421 F.2d 290 (10th Cir. 1970); Little v. United States, 409 F.2d 1343 (10th Cir. 1969); Hall v. United States, 404 F.2d 1365 (10th Cir. 1969); Cooper v. United ......
-
Harada v. State
...P.2d 743, 752 (1975) citing in fn. 7 Affronti v. United States, 350 U.S. 79, 76 S.Ct. 171, 100 L.Ed.2d [L.Ed.] 62 (1955); Andrus v. Turner, 421 F.2d 290 (10th Cir.1970) ; State v. Perez, 15 Ariz.App. 300, 488 P.2d 505 (1971) ; In re Gutierrez, 82 Ariz. 21, 307 P.2d 914, cert. denied, 355 U.......
-
U.S. v. Kuck
...Eighth Amendment. The sentence is within the statutory limits. Ordinarily such a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal. Andrus v. Turner, 10 Cir., 421 F.2d 290, 292. Although the Eighth Amendment is a constitutional limitation on congressionally prescribed penalties, legislative provisio......