Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-08016/USCOURTS-ca10-90-08016-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry Fred Gallegos
Appellant
Philip Spears
Appellee

Document Text:

Fl LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAfl9ite<l S~::;~;~~; Appeals 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT l~OV 15 1990 

----------KQBERTL.HOECKER 

Clerk 

LARRY FRED GALLEGOS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

v. 

PHILIP SPEARS, Warden, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

No. 90-8016 

(D. C. No. C89-0151B) 

( D. Wyo.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(1); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Mr. Gallegos appeals prose the denial of his petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 u.s.c. S 2254. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-8016 Document: 010110051299 Date Filed: 11/15/1990 Page: 1 
t 

Mr. Gallegos was indicted, tried, found guilty, and sentenced 

in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming 

for violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841 and 18 u.s.c. § 2. He 

appealed these convictions to this court, which were affirmed in 

No. 88-1420, United States v. Gallegos (Order and Judgment filed 

December 20, 1988), and certiorari was denied by the United States 

Supreme Court. See Gallegos v. United States, 109 S. Ct. 2439 

(1989). 

Mr. Gallegos filed his petition for habeas corpus pro se, 

asserting that the federal court lacked jurisdiction as the state 

had "jurisdiction and jeopardy" over him until all state action 

had been concluded. Petitioner bases this assertion on the fact 

that state officials originally investigated his offense and a 

search warrant was issued by the Wyoming State District Court. 

Relief was denied by the federal district court and Mr. Gallegos 

again appeals asserting the "United States District Court lacked 

subject matter jurisdiction to try Petitioner ..•. [D]ue to the 

State of Wyoming ... investigation[,] all evidence adduced were 

[sic) in fact along with the body of Gallegos within the said 

State's jurisdiction •... " 

We have considered Mr. Gallegos' assertions of error and find 

them to be without merit. The order of the United States District 

Court dated January 8, 1990, is AFFIRMED for substantially the 

same reasons therein set forth. A copy of said order is attached 

hereto. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-8016 Document: 010110051299 Date Filed: 11/15/1990 Page: 2 
The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-8016 Document: 010110051299 Date Filed: 11/15/1990 Page: 3 
j 

·-- ·.· ._ . ;-: • -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING 

FI I.JED 

LARRY F. GALLEGOS, Unit~d rr.~~~.rC~~i./:; r\ppe~lic~ , ~. . _ 

Petitioner, ~f B 7 - 1990 ,<.• 

vs. r) NO C89-0151-B ROBE~T L. HOECKER. 

PHILIP SPEARS, Warden, ) Cle:rk 

) 

Respondent. ) 

ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

This matter comes b~fore the Court on the petition of 

defendant Larry F. Gallegos for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 u.s.c. § 2441. 

Petitioner was indicted in the United States District Court 

for the District of Wyoming. He was found guilty and sentenced for 

violations of 21 u.s.c. §§ 846 and 841, and 18 u.s.c. § 2. 

Petitioner now alleges that he is being irnprcperly held in federal 

custody because the federal court lacked jurisdiction to prosecute 

him. 1 Petitioner bases this contention on the fact that State 

officials investigated his offense, and a search warrant was issued 

Petitioner brings this action prose, and we therefore give 

the ambiguities in his argument every interpretation favorable to 

him. 

Appellate Case: 90-8016 Document: 010110051299 Date Filed: 11/15/1990 Page: 4 
) 

by the Wyoming State District Court. Petitioner contends the State 

had "jurisdiction and jeopardy" over him, and the federal court had 

no right to exercise its jurisdiction until the state action had 

been concluded. 

In support of his argument, petitioner cites various cases 

which are not on point. Wilson v. Schnettler, 365 U.S. 381 (1961), 

is a case in which the federal court declined the defendant's 

request that it interfere in the ongoing state prosecution of a 

criminal defendant. The Court in that case noted that rules are 

necessary to avoid embarrassing conflicts between the two 

sovereigns. One such rule is that a defendant "' should not be 

permitted to use the machinery of one sovereignty to obstruct his 

trial in the courts of the other .... ' Another is that federal 

courts should not exercise their discretionary power 'to interfere 

with or embarrass threatened proceedings in state courts ... 111 Id. 

at 385 (citations omitted). Although those rules remain in effect, 

they are of no assistance to the petitioner. There was no state 

proceeding either in existence or threatened. The mere fact that 

the investigation was conducted and the search warrant issued by 

state officials does not constitute a "proceeding." The other 

cases cited by petitioner ~r. support of his c~~tent~c~ s~ffe= f~u~ 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-8016 Document: 010110051299 Date Filed: 11/15/1990 Page: 5 
the same infirmity. Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U.S. 148 (1889) and 

Douglas v. Jeanette, 319 U.S. 157 (1943) deal similarly with 

proceedings either threatened o~ in progress in the State court. 

Strand v. Schmittroth, 251 F.2d 590 (9th Cir. 1957), also cited by 

petitioner, held that a person convicted in the federal court could 

be arrested by state officials while on federal probation. The 

case, if anything, undermines petitioner's position. The court 

stated that "[i]t is well established that a sovereign, which has 

the paramount right to proceed with trial and sentence and which 

at the same time has custody of a defendant, may yield up the body 

to another sovereign and consent to trial of the defendant .... " 

Id. at 595. 

State and federal law enforcement officials commonly work 

together. See, e.g., United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 (1976); 

United States v. Pennington, 635 F.2d 1387 (10th Cir. 1980). The 

argument that they could not continue to do so without risk of 

jurisdictional infringement is untenable. 

Although it is not clear that petitioner has raised this 

issue, we now address the matter of double jeopardy. Even if there 

had been state prosecution, there would have been no violation of 

the constitutional right to be protected fron dm.:.ble j aopardy. 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-8016 Document: 010110051299 Date Filed: 11/15/1990 Page: 6 
·t 

' 

Where prosecution is by different sovereigns, the bar against 

reprosecution is inapplicable. Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 

(1959); Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959); United States 

v. Gourley, 835 F.2d 250 (10th Cir. 1987). 

THEREFORE, it is 

ORDERED that Gallegos' petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

is DENIED. 

17~ 

Dated this t; -------- day of January, 1990. 

4 

CHIEF 

Li!~ 

JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

CERI IFED A TIUJE COPY: 

William C. Beaman 

Clerk 

B.,o~fu,,~~ 

DepuyClm 

Appellate Case: 90-8016 Document: 010110051299 Date Filed: 11/15/1990 Page: 7