Arechiga v. State of Texas, 72-1476.
| Decision Date | 12 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1476.,72-1476. |
| Citation | 469 F.2d 646 |
| Parties | Rudolph Castillo ARECHIGA and Jose Moreno Perales, Petitioners-Appellants, v. STATE OF TEXAS et al., Respondents-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Shannon Ratliff, Austin, Tex. (Court-appointed), for Arechiga.
Joseph Latting, Austin, Tex. (Court-appointed), for Perales.
Crawford Martin, Atty. Gen., Roland Daniel Green, III, Sarah E. Phillips, Asst. Atty. Gens., Austin, Tex., for respondents-appellees.
Before DYER, SIMPSON and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners Arechiga and Perales were tried separately in Texas criminal court and convicted of possessing a narcotic drug. On this habeas appeal both petitioners contend that the prosecution knowingly acquiesced in the use of false testimony and that the trial court erroneously refused to allow defense counsel to impeach the main prosecution witness. On oral argument before this court petitioners' cases were consolidated with three other cases which involved similar factual situations. It was undisputed that our disposition of the above two issues in any one case would of necessity control the same issues in the other cases. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in Corpus v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1972, 469 F.2d 953, we hold that these two contentions are without merit.
Petitioner Perales contends individually that he was denied due process of law when he received a longer sentence on retrial than he received at his first trial. In approaching this claim we must first examine the factual background that led to his final sentence. Perales was a twice-convicted felon who, under the Texas enhancement statute,1 was subject to a mandatory life sentence if convicted of a third felony. At the first trial the state offered to waive the enhancement provisions and thereby exempt Perales of the possibility of receiving a life sentence if Perales would agree to a nonjury trial. Perales agreed and was tried by a judge who convicted him and imposed a sentence of from 2 to 15 years. Perales then filed a motion for a new trial which was granted because the judge who tried Perales had acted as prosecuting attorney in a previous case involving Perales. At the beginning of the second trial the state again offered to waive the habitual criminal provisions on condition that Perales not demand a jury trial. This time, however, Perales elected to be tried by a jury which found him guilty of possessing narcotics. At that point the state pled the enhancement statute and introduced the evidence of the prior convictions which necessarily resulted in the imposition of a life sentence that is now attacked as unconstitutional.
The basis of the attack is the case North Carolina v. Pearce, 1969, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656. In that case the Supreme Court was concerned with a defendant who was given a greater sentence after retrial than the sentence received at the first...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hardwick v. Doolittle
...on trial de novo could have been motivated by personal vindictiveness on the part of the sentencing judge").4 See Arechiga v. Texas, 469 F.2d 646, 647 (5th Cir. 1973), corrected sub silentio in United States v. Floyd, 519 F.2d 1031, 1034 & n. 5 (5th Cir. 1975).5 The Court of Appeals for the......
-
State v. Spaulding
...United States v. Johnson, 537 F.2d 1170 (4th Cir. 1976); United States v. Anderson, 514 F.2d 583 (7th Cir. 1975); Arechiga v. Texas, 469 F.2d 646 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 932, 94 S.Ct. 236, 38 L.Ed.2d 162 (1973); United States v. Rines, 453 F.2d 878 (3rd Cir. 1971); United St......
-
Palm v. State, 67133
...him on the greater charges.' Moore, 546 F.2d at 68, citing Martinez v. Estelle, 527 F.2d 1330, 1331-32 (5th Cir.1976); Arechiga v. Texas, 469 F.2d 646, 647 (5th Cir.1972); Harrington v. U.S., 444 F.2d 1190, 1194 (5th "It is equally clear under Bordenkircher --contrary to the District Court'......
-
Branch v. Beto
...two trials, this court cannot conclude that the State through its prosecuting attorney acted vindictively. Cf. Arechiga v. State of Texas, 469 F.2d 646 (5th Cir. 1973). Finally, petitioner challenges the constitutionality of the Texas Recidivist statutes. Without deciding whether the conten......