Ochoa v. Lennon, 84-1023

• Decision Date: 24 January 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84-1023,84-1023
• Parties: Isidro Sanchez OCHOA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. M.C. LENNON, Jr., Warden, Federal Correction Institute, Bastrop, Respondent-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 1345

750 F.2d 1345

Isidro Sanchez OCHOA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. M.C. LENNON, Jr., Warden, Federal Correction Institute, Bastrop, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 84-1023.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 24, 1985.

Joe Gagen, Houston, Tex. (court-appointed), for petitioner-appellant.

Helen M. Eversberg, U.S. Atty., Hugh P. Shovlin, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., for respondent-appellee.

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

Before POLITZ, GARWOOD and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge:

The district court granted the respondent's motion for summary judgment and denied petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

I

On January 23, 1979, appellant was sentenced by a federal district judge to ten years imprisonment with a five-year special parole term to follow. The trial court, following the split sentence provisions of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3651, ¹ directed Ochoa to serve 179 days of the ten-year sentence, suspended execution of the remainder of his sentence, and placed petitioner on probation for five years commencing upon his release from confinement. Ochoa completed the confinement portion of his sentence on May 31, 1979, and was placed on probation. On October 23, 1979, the district court revoked petitioner's probation for violating the terms of his probation as authorized by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3653. ² The court directed Ochoa to serve a term of six years with a five-year special parole term to follow.

The Bureau of Prisons followed its published guidelines ³ and declined to give Ochoa credit toward the six-year sentence for the 179 days previously served, which credit would have reduced Ochoa's sentence to five and one-half years. ⁴

Ochoa contends that his total sentence is six years, which should be reduced by the 179 days he served in 1979 on grounds that: (1) proper statutory interpretation compels this result, (2) alternatively, if the Bureau of Prisons correctly interpreted the statute, this application of the criminal laws violates his constitutionally-protected rights against double jeopardy and equal protection of the laws.

II

A sentencing court is granted limited authority by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3651 to impose a split sentence, that is, include both confinement time and probation in a single sentence upon conviction of a single crime. Section 3651 provides that: "[the court] may impose a sentence in excess of six months and provide that the defendant be confined ... for a period not exceeding six months and that the execution of the remainder of the sentence be suspended and defendant placed on probation...." If the defendant's probation is revoked after he serves the initial confinement portion of the sentence, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3653 authorizes the trial court to designate the amount of time defendant must then serve: "the court may revoke the probation and require him to serve the sentence imposed, or any lesser sentence, ...."

Appellant argues from the language of sections 3651 and 3653 that the six-year sentence the trial court imposed following revocation of probation was a modification of the original sentence announcing the total time to be served rather than a separate sentence that stated the remaining time to be served. Since the total sentence under this theory is six years, Ochoa contends the correct way to compute his net sentence is to deduct the 179 days he served from the total sentence of six years.

Ochoa's springboard is the language of section 3653. He argues that his sentence was "imposed" on January 23, 1979, and the only authority granted the district court following revocation of probation was to "require" him to serve the sentence originally imposed or some lesser sentence. Ochoa asserts that it therefore follows that the district court's action following probation revocation was not the imposition of sentence; rather it simply connotes a change in the original sentence. He concludes that the modified sentence becomes "the only sentence in effect and the only one the Bureau of Prisons can consider in computing Ochoa's term." (Appellant's brief, P. 9).

Ochoa finds some support for his argument from United States v. Rice, 671 F.2d 455 (11th Cir.1982). In Rice, the question presented was whether a Rule 35(b) motion ⁵ was filed as required within 120 days of imposition of sentence. The defendant was initially sentenced in 1978 under section 3651 to a three-year sentence, execution of which was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for four years. Probation was revoked three years later and the defendant was directed to serve a three-year sentence of confinement. The court held that the sentence was "imposed" in 1978 and the subsequent action following revocation of probation in 1981 was not a new, separate sentence. The court concluded therefore that the Rule 35(b) motion filed in 1981 was not timely.

Defendant argues that the court's rationale supports his view that the only sentence imposed was the original sentence and the subsequent action following probation revocation was a modification of that sentence so that the 179 days he served should be credited against that single sentence as modified.

Although this argument has some surface appeal, it ignores the authority granted under section 3653 to the sentencing judge who revokes probation. Section 3653 empowers the sentencing judge who revokes probation to require the prisoner to serve the sentence imposed--ten years in this case--or any lesser sentence. Consequently, the judge who revoked Ochoa's probation undoubtedly had the authority to require Ochoa to serve a term of up to nine and a half years--the original sentence less the time served. Assuming the action taken by the sentencing court following probation revocation is a modification of the original sentence, in the absence of contrary directives by the sentencing judge, we conclude that it is reasonable to presume that the six years the court directed Ochoa to serve is in addition to the initial 179-day jail term.

The Ninth Circuit in Granger v. United States, 688 F.2d 1296 (9th Cir.1982), was presented with the identical issue confronting us today. In Granger, the court sentenced defendant to five years imprisonment and directed that he immediately serve a six-month sentence; execution of the remaining four and a half-year jail term was suspended. Defendant served the six-month jail sentence, after which he was released on probation. He then violated the terms of probation and the sentencing judge required him to serve three years imprisonment. The Bureau of Prisons declined to give the defendant credit against the three-year sentence for the six months initially served. Granger made the same argument to the Ninth Circuit that Ochoa makes to us that the Bureau of Prisons improperly computed the time he was required to serve. The court rejected defendant's argument and held:

When a convicted defendant receives less than the maximum possible sentence, he is presumed to have been credited for any time served in custody before sentencing unless the record shows credit was not given.

* * *

* * *

The Bureau of Prisons properly presumed, as the trial judge intended, that Granger had been allowed credit for the six months served, when he was sentenced to serve a more lenient three year term, rather than the entire remaining sentence.

We agree with the reasoning of the Granger court that it is reasonable to presume that the sentencing judge who revokes probation takes a fresh look at the defendant's culpability and circumstances and considers at that point in the proceedings the amount of time the defendant should be required to serve. Also, it is not unrealistic to note that the district court sentences in light of regulations and other pronouncements published by the parole commission and the Bureau of Prisons. If the sentencing court had wished Ochoa to receive credit for the six months initially served--contrary to the Bureau of Prisons guidelines, it is reasonable to expect that it would have either directed that such credit be given or would have required defendant to serve only five and a half years.

We conclude that the Bureau of Prisons properly computed defendant's sentence and the trial court correctly denied habeas relief on this claim in petitioner's application.

Appellant also contends that the Bureau of Prison's calculation of the term of his confinement violates protection against double jeopardy provided him in the fifth amendment. This contention is based on the theory that when the Bureau of Prisons added the initial 179 days of confinement to the six-year sentence, it was punishing defendant twice for the same offense. This argument is totally without merit. See United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 101 S.Ct. 426, 66 L.Ed.2d 328 (1980); Pollard v. United States, 352 U.S. 354, 77 S.Ct. 481, 1 L.Ed.2d 393 (1954); Thomas v. United States, 327 F.2d 795 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 1000, 84 S.Ct. 1936, 12 L.Ed.2d 1051 (1969).

Appellant also argues that the refusal of the Bureau of Prisons to reduce his six-year sentence by the 179 days he initially served is a violation of the equal protection...