Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02053/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02053-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ralph M. Lepiscopo
Appellant
George E. Sullivan
Appellee

Document Text:

, 

' 

) 

FILED 

United States Co!1r__t <?f Ap?c:i.b 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Cir ... ui .. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

RALPH M. LEPISCOPO, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

GEORGE E. SULLIVAN, Warden, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

). 

) 

) 

SEP O 5 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-2053 

(D.C. No. 89-27-SC) 

(D. New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, 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(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Ralph M. Lepiscopo, a prose state prisoner, brought a habeas 

petition seeking to set aside his escape conviction pursuant to a 

guilty plea. Lepiscopo contended that the State had not complied 

with the terms of the plea agreement. The district court agreed 

*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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-2053 Document: 010110084308 Date Filed: 09/05/1991 Page: 1 
and ordered that plea vacated unless the State afforded Lepiscopo 

a new trial within six months. When the State failed to do so, 

the court vacated the conviction and sentence. However, the court 

held that Lepiscopo was not entitled to an order precluding the 

State from retrying him on the basis of the facts underlying the 

vacated conviction. The court also refused to issue a certificate 

of probable cause. On appeal, Lepiscopo argues that the court 

erred on refusing to bar further prosecution, and in refusing to 

grant his request for costs and attorney's fees. 

It is the rule that "holding a conviction invalid and 

granting the writ do not generally bar retrial on the original 

charge." Bromley v. Crisp, 561 F.2d 1351, 1364 (10th Cir. 1977) 

(en bane), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 908, (1978); see also Bowen v. 

Maynard, 799 F.2d 593, 614 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 962 

(1986); Fisher v. Rose, 757 F.2d 789, 791 (6th Cir. 1985). The 

fact that Lepiscopo's habeas action was resolved on the parties' 

stipulations does not render the general rule inapplicable. 

Lepiscopo is not presently incarcerated under the invalid 

conviction, nor will retrial otherwise infringe on his 

constitutional rights. See generally Latzer v. Abrams, 615 F. 

Supp. 1226 (E.D.N.Y. 1985). Accordingly, the district court was 

correct in holding that retrial is not barred. 

We also conclude that Lepiscopo has failed to make a 

substantial showing of the denial of a important federal right, 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-2053 Document: 010110084308 Date Filed: 09/05/1991 Page: 2 
l 

see Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983), and we therefore 

deny his application for a certificate of probable cause.

1 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

1 Given Lepiscopo's 

he has appeared either 

these proceedings, his 

frivolous. 

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

in forma pauperis status and the fact that 

prose or with appointed counsel throughout 

request for costs and attorney's fees is 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-2053 Document: 010110084308 Date Filed: 09/05/1991 Page: 3